Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Jun 6, 2014, at 8:00 AM, "Rik Cabanier" mailto:caban...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Dirk Schulze mailto:dschu...@adobe.com>> wrote: On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Rik Cabanier mailto:caban...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > What about > > > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or > >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > What about > > > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1) > > > > Do we

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > What about > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1) > > Do we check the values and determine if the matrix is identity or not? If we

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > What about > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1) > > Do we check the values and determine if the matrix is identity or not? If > we do, then authors could write DOMMatrix(other.a, other.b, o

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Jun 6, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > :) would be short enough I guess. But doesn’t sound serious enough. > > translateSelf? > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le >

Re: Overriding the CSP for privileged protocols

2014-06-05 Thread Daniel Veditz
On 6/5/2014 8:50 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 6/5/14, 11:39 AM, Matthew Gertner wrote: >> The problem is that on sites the enforce their own CSP, the resources >> may not be loaded. For example, github.com has script-src set to >> 'self' so it won't load stylesheets via our protocol. Is there any

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Benoit Jacob
2014-06-05 18:59 GMT-04:00 Matt Woodrow : > On 6/06/14 12:05 am, Benoit Jacob wrote: > >> >> The situation isn't symmetric: radians are inherently simpler to implement >> (thus slightly faster), basically because only in radians is it true that >> sin(x) ~= x for small x. >> >> I also doubt that d

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Matt Woodrow
On 6/06/14 12:05 am, Benoit Jacob wrote: The situation isn't symmetric: radians are inherently simpler to implement (thus slightly faster), basically because only in radians is it true that sin(x) ~= x for small x. I also doubt that degrees are simpler to understand, and if anything you might j

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> There are 2 things that I have questions about: >> 1. isIdentity() >> We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a >> non >> identity state. >> This mean

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > >> :) would be short enough I guess. But doesn’t sound serious enough. >> > > translateSelf? > Or translateThis of course. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus e

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > There are 2 things that I have questions about: > 1. isIdentity() > We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a non > identity state. > This means that the following code: > > var m = new DOMMatrix(); > > m.rotate(0

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > :) would be short enough I guess. But doesn’t sound serious enough. > translateSelf? Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teo

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong > > about this) > > There are 2 things that I hav

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong > about this) > > There are 2 things that I have questions about: > > 1. isIdentity() > > We settled that this sho

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong about > this) > There are 2 things that I have questions about: > 1. isIdentity() > We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a non > identity

Re: Standardized assertion methods

2014-06-05 Thread Gavin Sharp
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Mike de Boer wrote: > I want that to happen, which is most ‘cost-efficient’; if that’s moving the > implementation of `is`, `isnot`, `ise` to a separate module whilst keeping > the method names available to all Mochitest(-browser) tests, than we do that. > > If pr

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong about this) There are 2 things that I have questions about: 1. isIdentity() We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a non identity state. This means that the following code: var m = new DOMMatrix()

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Rik Cabanier > wrote: > > That would require try/catch around all the "inv

Proposed W3C Charter: Social Web Working Group

2014-06-05 Thread L. David Baron
The W3C is proposing a new charter for two groups: Social Web Working Group http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html Social Interest Group http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-ig-charter.html both in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2014May/0011.ht

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread Ted Mielczarek
On 6/5/2014 12:31 PM, jmor...@mozilla.com wrote: > These are two good questions Robert. Both points are nuanced and merit more > discussion. > > 1. Re: 64 bit as a bandaid for OOM. This is an alternate viewpoint that a few > folks advanced for discussion. I assumed this meant (at the least) PCs

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM, J. Ryan Stinnett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > >> It's also security boost for 64 bit users. > > > > > > Could someone please explain why you and Google claim 64bit to be more > > secure? This is a new argument to me and I wonder

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread jmoradi
These are two good questions Robert. Both points are nuanced and merit more discussion. 1. Re: 64 bit as a bandaid for OOM. This is an alternate viewpoint that a few folks advanced for discussion. I assumed this meant (at the least) PCs with > 4GB physical memory. I'm not sure if this applies

Re: Overriding the CSP for privileged protocols

2014-06-05 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/5/14, 11:39 AM, Matthew Gertner wrote: Our extension injects styles into webpages via a protocol defined using our own protocol handler using . We have our own nsIContentPolicy which we use to enforce which resources from this protocol can be injected into content pages. The problem is th

Overriding the CSP for privileged protocols

2014-06-05 Thread Matthew Gertner
Our extension injects styles into webpages via a protocol defined using our own protocol handler using . We have our own nsIContentPolicy which we use to enforce which resources from this protocol can be injected into content pages. The problem is that on sites the enforce their own CSP, the re

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread J. Ryan Stinnett
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >> It's also security boost for 64 bit users. > > > Could someone please explain why you and Google claim 64bit to be more > secure? This is a new argument to me and I wonder what's behind it. As stated in Google's announcement[1], the main se

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

2014-06-05 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
On 05/06/2014 15:56, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: On 04/06/2014 07:34, Byron Jones wrote: thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you last visi

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread Robert Kaiser
jmor...@mozilla.com schrieb: Launching 64 bit first may be a stability bandaid for users who have 64 bit and adequate memory. I would want to see decently founded comparative stats from a wide variety of systems before claiming that. bsmedberg and others have done some analysis that looks to

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

2014-06-05 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > On 04/06/2014 07:34, Byron Jones wrote: > >> thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view >> a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you >> last visited them. >> >> see my blog post f

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

2014-06-05 Thread Mark Côté
On 2014-06-04, 3:01 PM, Neil wrote: > Byron Jones wrote: > >> thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you >> view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated >> since you last visited them. > > I shared a basic search which I call "Unseen Changes". > > I

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-05 9:08 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Srecko

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Benoit Jacob
2014-06-05 9:08 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob > wrote: > >> >> >> >> 2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic >>> wrote: >>> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Rik Cabanier
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic >> wrote: >> >>> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design >>> principles? >>> >>> I was hoping this wou

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread Till Schneidereit
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Philip Chee wrote: > On 04/06/2014 22:32, jmor...@mozilla.com wrote: > > > We have a good understanding of the work required. The development > > work, as you might suspect, is largely done. We still produce 64 bit > > builds. The notable areas remaining are: > > >

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

2014-06-05 Thread Philip Chee
On 04/06/2014 22:32, jmor...@mozilla.com wrote: > We have a good understanding of the work required. The development > work, as you might suspect, is largely done. We still produce 64 bit > builds. The notable areas remaining are: > - completing test coverage > - working on plugin/add-on compatib

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-05 Thread Benoit Jacob
2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic > wrote: > >> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design >> principles? >> >> I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to >> radians, like the canva

Re: Standardized assertion methods

2014-06-05 Thread Mike de Boer
On 05 Jun 2014, at 12:00, Dao wrote: > On 05.06.2014 11:38, Mike de Boer wrote: >> On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao wrote: >> >>> On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote: The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic superiority, but because of its similarity to bo

Re: Standardized assertion methods

2014-06-05 Thread Dao
On 05.06.2014 11:38, Mike de Boer wrote: On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao wrote: On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote: The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and Mochitest assertion styles and

Re: Standardized assertion methods

2014-06-05 Thread Mike de Boer
On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao wrote: > On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote: >> The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic >> superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and >> Mochitest assertion styles and implementation. >> This way I thou

Re: Standardized assertion methods

2014-06-05 Thread Dao
On 05.06.2014 09:54, Dao wrote: On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote: The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and Mochitest assertion styles and implementation. This way I thought we could circumv

Re: Standardized assertion methods

2014-06-05 Thread Dao
On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote: The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and Mochitest assertion styles and implementation. This way I thought we could circumvent ppl to get worried about re