On 9/25/17 11:45 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
So I don't think this requires any new *features* to be spec'd in
CSS (since @supports would work, and is the right thing to use),
although it probably does require a small amount of new spec prose
to explain how it works.
Well, it would need spec text
On 9/16/17 6:43 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 2. There are a lot more people writing code for Firefox than developing the
> internal tools, so in general, costs on those people should be avoided.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> And having something complex and scary on th
On Monday 2017-09-25 09:12 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/25/17 9:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > It does not seem hard to come up with solutions to those problems, if
> > we're actually committed to going down this path.
>
> If we are, yes. We need to decide whether we are...
>
> > (E.g
I'm not sure I agree with my own comment -- that's an insane fall-back
path. Might ease some backwards compatibility problems, but we don't know
how many of those there will be. But then we have to live with the insanity
forever.
-Dan Veditz
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Christoph Kerschbaumer
Thanks Jonathan.
Also, it seems the link to the web extension version of the container addon
is broken above. This one works for me:
https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/releases/latest
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Kingston wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> TL;DR - containers i
On 9/25/17 9:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It does not seem hard to come up with solutions to those problems, if
we're actually committed to going down this path.
If we are, yes. We need to decide whether we are...
(E.g., just like globals have isSecureContext,
there could be a media query
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/25/17 3:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> But it would also be good if we could all communicate this on behalf
>> of Mozilla without caveats. E.g., Chrome might ship worklets soon and
>> being able to object to that happening (specifica
On 9/25/17 3:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
But it would also be good if we could all communicate this on behalf
of Mozilla without caveats. E.g., Chrome might ship worklets soon and
being able to object to that happening (specification-wise) on
insecure contexts on behalf of Mozilla would be go
Get Flat 25% Discount in This Report at
http://www.theinsightpartners.com/discount/TIPTE10382 (Offer available up
to October 15, 2017)
The Signaling Devices market accounted for US$ 1520.0 million in 2016 and is
expected to grow during the forecast period 2017 – 2025, to account for US$
267
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:27 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> Christoph said
> For backwards compatibility child-src will still be enforced for:
> * workers (if worker-src is not explicitly specified)
>
> But the spec says the fallback is script-src. Surely anyone who uses
> child-src will also ha
It seems that with Richard leaving Mozilla we dropped the ball on
requiring HTTPS more often:
https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non-secure-http/
At least I can't find any follow-up with an agreed upon date and we're
still rather hit-or-miss when it comes to using [SecureC
11 matches
Mail list logo
