Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

[smaug]

On 10/22/2016 03:59 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:

On 10/21/2016 3:11 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

> Does this mean that we'd be breaking one in 5 geolocation requests as a
> result of this?  That seems super high.  :(

Agreed. For example, my understanding is that this will break
http://www.nextbus.com/ (and thus http://www.nextmuni.com/ ) location
awareness (useful for us SF folks), which is kind of essential for
having it tell you transit stops near you. -t


Indeed, the geolocation feature on nextbus.com is broken in Chrome. (The site 
shows a geolocation error message on first use.)

Next Bus already has an HTTPS version of their site, but it is not the default 
and has some mixed-content warnings. For a site that uses geolocation
as a core part of its service, I'm surprised they have let it stay broken in 
Chrome for six months. Chrome removed insecure geolocation


"insecure". SecureContext is really quite high level concept and doesn't apply to all the necessary bits in the platform. So just to remind that it 
doesn't exactly give too much security.

https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-secure-contexts/#isolation
(It is rather mystery to me for example why the spec does explicitly handle SharedWorkers but doesn't BroadcastChannel, when they both deal with 
cross-browsing-context messaging (SharedWorker also other stuff))



in April 2016
and announced its deprecation in November 2015.


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Triage Plan for Firefox Components

[johnarsenal886]

On Friday, 14 October 2016 04:10:18 UTC+8, Emma Humphries  wrote:
> 
> 
> ​Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for your patience while I got back to you.
> 
> The triage plan we're using is
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugmasters/Process/Triage.
> 
> The Platform team is also using ​
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform#Bug_Triage to focus on regressions.
> 
> Several teams that develop on GitHub are using the P1-P3, P5 scheme in
> their repos and using waffle.io to aggregate across projects.
> 
> Scoreboards are:
> 
> https://emceeaich.github.io/triage-report/ and
> https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/dashboard/firefox-triage
> 
> My current reporting doesn't account for projects that exclusively track
> bugs in GitHub issues.
> 
> There's a mailing-list, firefox-triage-le...@mozilla.org, but it's a low
> volume list.
> 
> -- Emma

Thank you so much Emma! Really grateful for your response!
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

[Shih-Chiang Chien]

Support revised charter.

The revised charter creates some flexibility for us to promote Flyweb as a
new feature in Presentation API Level 2, which has been discussed in the
F2F meeting of the WG this year. It also create a good structure to move
non-WebAPI discussion to CG and keep WG focusing on the API development.

[additional information on Mozilla's implementation plan]
The current plan is to enable 1-UA implementation on Fennec on Nightly
(release 52). No detailed engineering plan on Firefox desktop for now. We
are cultivating some proposal to identify the usability of this API on
desktop browser before dumping engineering resource on it.

Best Regards,
Shih-Chiang Chien
Mozilla Taiwan

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Tantek Çelik 
wrote:

> I have reviewed the charter and the current set of deliverables. The
> work appears to be proceeding reasonably (pragmatically, with many
> members/implementers including Apple and Google) and reasonably
> minimally scoped. There is also the companion Second Screen Community
> Group which appears to be used to incubate work before proceeding in
> the working group, a pattern which we are generally supportive of.
>
> Support revised charter.
>
> I don't know of our current implementation plans on this WG's deliverables.
>
> The most recent discussion here of any of the deliverables of the WG
> was on "PresentationAPI", in particular a "[PresentationAPI] Intend to
> implement" thread here in 2014 September.
>
> Tantek
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:28 PM, L. David Baron 
> wrote:
> > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
> >
> >   Second Screen Working Group
> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Sep/0011.html
> >   https://www.w3.org/2014/secondscreen/charter-2016.html
> >
> > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
> > next Tuesday, October 25.
> >
> > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> > support or oppose it.
> >
> > Mozilla does have participants in this group:
> > https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=74168&public=1&order=org#_
> MozillaFoundation
> >
> > -David
> >
> > --
> > 𝄞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> > 𝄢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
> >  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> >  What I was walling in or walling out,
> >  And to whom I was like to give offense.
> >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
> >
> > ___
> > dev-platform mailing list
> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform