On 2014-11-21, at 08:19, Justin Dolske wrote:
>
> Is that a direct or indirect cause? AFAIK nothing directly requires Google to
> offer this, but the alternative would be organizations and networks who do
> want/need to see traffic simply blocking Google services. And so Google has
> made the
On Friday 2014-11-21 14:51 -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> The spec looks a bit weird though. It says that "display: content;"
> maps to "display-outside: content; display-inside: block".
The display-inside value shouldn't actually matter; it gets ignored.
It just has to be something. (Perhaps it s
Has TC39 discussed how to handle the fact that there are a couple of
classes in the DOM, like DOMStringList, which we'd like to replace
with normal JS Arrays. But these DOM classes have a .contains function
which so far has meant that such a switch was not possible due to the
arrays not having a .c
The spec looks a bit weird though. It says that "display: content;"
maps to "display-outside: content; display-inside: block".
Does that mean that you can't use "display: content;" to allow an
element to for example wrap two table-rows? Or to wrap some inline
text?
/ Jonas
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 a
Awesome! I've looked forward to this for a long time!
/ Jonas
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mats Palmgren wrote:
> Summary:
> Styling an element with display:contents will inhibit generating
> a box for the element, but its children and pseudo-elements still
> generate boxes as normal.
>
> B
On 11/21/14 8:49 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2014-11-21 12:51 +0100, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
>Well, for one thing, it's not self-documenting.
We should comment them better (i.e., have a bug on each one, and
point to the bug in a comment on the expectAssertions line). I
wasn't a
On 11/21/14 6:53 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
regulatory compliance,
What's this about?
nosslsearch.google.com is an example of the weight of regulatory compliance
in action. Google talks loudly about all https (and has the leading track
record), yet there it is. And google isn't special in t
On Friday 2014-11-21 12:51 +0100, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> Well, for one thing, it's not self-documenting.
We should comment them better (i.e., have a bug on each one, and
point to the bug in a comment on the expectAssertions line). I
wasn't able to do that when initially landing the ass
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Patrick McManus
> wrote:
> > in action. Google talks loudly about all https (and has the leading track
> > record), yet there it is. And google isn't special in that regard.
>
> Why would they be allowe
On Friday 2014-11-21 16:32 +, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> On 20/11/2014 17:14, L. David Baron wrote:
> >>On 20/11/14 17:56, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> >>>Ah, we can't. We can whitelist the number of assertions in a mochitest
> >>>(or a number range if the number is not quite stable), but not the text
On 20/11/2014 17:14, L. David Baron wrote:
On 20/11/14 17:56, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Ah, we can't. We can whitelist the number of assertions in a mochitest
(or a number range if the number is not quite stable), but not the text
of the assertion.
On Thursday 2014-11-20 18:05 +0100, David Rajchen
Summary:
Styling an element with display:contents will inhibit generating
a box for the element, but its children and pseudo-elements still
generate boxes as normal.
Bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907396
Link to standard:
CSS Display Module Level 3
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-
> But that would no longer be about HTTP. At least as far as the things
> we've been talking about exposing in browsers are concerned.
Lots of things speak over http that arent (permenently) connected to the
global web / dns, why is that not of any concern?
On 21 November 2014 16:09, Anne van Kes
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> nosslsearch.google.com is an example of the weight of regulatory compliance
> in action. Google talks loudly about all https (and has the leading track
> record), yet there it is. And google isn't special in that regard.
Why would they be
Hi -
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> Indeed. Huge thanks to everyone who is making Let's Encrypt happen.
>
> > regulatory compliance,
>
> What's this about?
>
nosslsearch.google.com is an example of the weight of regulatory compliance
in action. Google talks loudly abo
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Dao wrote:
> On 21.11.2014 14:10, Till Schneidereit wrote:
>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> TC39 has decided to solve the web-compat issues with
>> Array.prototype.contains that forced us to back out the feature on October
>> 1st by renaming the method to "includes". This ha
On 21.11.2014 14:10, Till Schneidereit wrote:
Greetings!
TC39 has decided to solve the web-compat issues with
Array.prototype.contains that forced us to back out the feature on October
1st by renaming the method to "includes". This has now landed on Nightly.
However, it is Nightly-only for now,
Greetings!
TC39 has decided to solve the web-compat issues with
Array.prototype.contains that forced us to back out the feature on October
1st by renaming the method to "includes". This has now landed on Nightly.
However, it is Nightly-only for now, so don't use it in production code
that's intend
On 19/11/14 17:15, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
> - Figure out how to ship/package/download/etc. the Oculus runtime
> pieces.
The last discussions on these were that you were planning to approach
Oculus to enquire about getting them under an open source license. How
did that go? If that's not going
Well, for one thing, it's not self-documenting. For the other, unless
I'm missing something, we won't notice if an assertion is fixed and
replaced with another one.
And yes, catching when an assertion is fixed would clearly be useful, too.
Cheers,
David
On 20/11/14 18:14, L. David Baron wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does Akamai's logo appearing on the Let's Encrypt announcements change
>> Akamai's need for OE? (Seems *really* weird if not.)
>
>
> let's encrypt is awesome - more https is aw
21 matches
Mail list logo
