Hi,
(I'm not 100% sure this is the proper mailing list to ask this question, but I
can't think of a more relevant mailing-list at this time. Please forward if
inappropriate)
After a long period of reluctance, Mozilla is deciding to implement WebP
[1][2]. The only explanation I have been able t
No decision has been made yet. We are still evaluating the format.
-Jeff
On 2013-04-08, at 5:09 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I'm not 100% sure this is the proper mailing list to ask this question, but
> I can't think of a more relevant mailing-list at this time. Please forward if
> inap
I have the following question:
Is there any way to port an application from Xulrunner to Android?
or which is the propper way to port a xulrunner app to android.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Regards
Stathis
___
dev-platform mailing lis
Our (ostensibly) weekly DOM bindings meetings continue on Monday April 8th
at 12:30 PM PDT.
Meeting details:
* Monday, April 8, 2013, 12:30 PM PDT (9:30 PM CEST)
* Conference room 7-N, San Francisco office, 7th floor.
* Dial-in Info:
- Vidyo room: SFO-7N
- In office or soft phone: extension 92
Le 08/04/2013 15:32, stathis.androni...@gmail.com a écrit :
> I have the following question:
>
> Is there any way to port an application from Xulrunner to Android?
> or which is the propper way to port a xulrunner app to android.
>
> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Xulrunner is not port
I am able to execute some pieces of a XULRunner-based app fine with
B2G. I simply took B2G work binary that Romaxa did for the Raspberry
PI. Do you need XUL widgets or you just want to call your Chrome URL
from B2G Gecko app?
m
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> Le 08/0
On 13-04-08 4:06 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> No decision has been made yet. We are still evaluating the format.
I think the concern is that none of that re-evaluation has been on a
public list or bug I've seen. Can you clarify what Andreas meant by,
"new data that shows that WebP has valid use cas
Sure. Everything.me was seeing large gains when using lossy image compression
with an alpha channel compared to png. This isn't a surprise but it's a use
case that's not well supported by the current image formats we support.
-Jeff
On 2013-04-08, at 12:53 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On 13-04-08 4
On 13-04-08 10:02 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> Sure. Everything.me was seeing large gains when using lossy image compression
> with an alpha channel compared to png. This isn't a surprise but it's a use
> case that's not well supported by the current image formats we support.
At least not since
I assume all this data/reasoning will be posted in the bug. People
just didn't get around to it yet. The idea was to use the bug to
discuss the issue. There is definitely no decision yet to ship, just a
decision to take a look at some additional data point someone raised.
Andreas
Sent from Mobile
Gabriele Svelto schrieb:
On 05/04/2013 01:49, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Though its feature set seems to be quite helpful for us:
http://lwn.net/Articles/543570/
Makes me think that we should at least experiment with it to make sure
are issues we have with it will be fixed in a .1 or so and we'll be
In stability-land we're starting to see some "interesting" problems
relating to virtual memory usage in Firefox on Windows.
See bug 875030 for information that led me along this path. In this
case, the user has plenty of memory (according to Windows) and is still
failing to allocate moderate-s
On 4/8/2013 7:46 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
In this case, the crash report shows "Available Virtual Memory" as
303558656, but in fact the largest contiguous block of available VM is
64k.
Correct, I had wrong math. The largest block available is about 3MB, and
the allocation being requested
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
> 1) early in the memory info, there appears to be a common pattern of a
> committed block and then 15 free blocks.
AIUI, on Windows the smallest block you can ask for with VirtualAlloc
is 4 KiB. However, no more than one VirtualAlloc bl
> AIUI, on Windows the smallest block you can ask for with VirtualAlloc
> is 4 KiB. However, no more than one VirtualAlloc block can exist per
> 64 KiB chunk. So if you ask for 4 KiB you'll end up wasting the
> remaining 60 KiB of address space in the 64 KiB chunk.
Awesome memory, Nick.
MSDN se
On 2013-04-06 11:24 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 03/04/2013 22:12, Andrew Overholt a écrit :
Yesterday a number of people discussed future plans for the WebAPI
team. Our discussion resulted in the ideas and comments that are on
this wiki page:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/PlannedWork
There
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:21:09 AM UTC+8, RyanVM wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 7:14 PM, allencb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Any idea what the tentative timeframe of rolling this out? in firefox 23 ?
>
> >
>
>
>
> The goal is Firefox 23, yes.
Am I right to assume that the XULrunner 23 daily build i
On 4/8/2013 7:46 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
See bug 875030 for information that led me along this path. In this
case, the user has plenty of memory (according to Windows) and is still
failing to allocate moderate-size graphics buffers (1-2MB). This has
very similar symptoms to a bunch of other
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:09:08PM -0400, Justin Lebar wrote:
> > AIUI, on Windows the smallest block you can ask for with VirtualAlloc
> > is 4 KiB. However, no more than one VirtualAlloc block can exist per
> > 64 KiB chunk. So if you ask for 4 KiB you'll end up wasting the
> > remaining 60 KiB
19 matches
Mail list logo
