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
>
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
>
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
> >
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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()
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
>
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
42 matches
Mail list logo