On 12/18/17 11:36 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 18/12/17 18:25, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> Do you know of a specific (URL?) mobile-device-capable (which
>> device(s)?) WebRTC-based audio-calling webapp that works today? I
>> would be very interested in testing it out.
>
> appear.in, which supports b
On 12/21/17 9:09 AM, Mike Kaply wrote:
> We currently do not plan to allow arbitrary preferences, but if certain
> preferences are important, we can add policies for them.
>
> We could also add policies that set groups of preferences for specific
> purposes.
Great idea. I like Luke's suggestion o
+1 to Martin's feedback.
On 1/3/18 10:19 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Without the protocol pieces, this remains vendor-specific. We should
> comment on this and make it clear that we think that definition of a
> generic protocol for interacting with the second display has not been
> given sufficie
We believe that
> rechartering the Second Screen WG should wait until that work is
> ready to be in a working group, and that advancing the current
> specifications (developed under the existing charter) to Proposed
> Recommendation probably depends on this new work in
pen protocol moves from incubation into
>standardization,
>
> although we are open to other paths toward fixing this situation.
>
>
> On Friday 2018-01-05 09:36 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Agreed. Thanks for the careful wording, David! (BTW s/apple/Apple/)
>&g
On 1/8/18 10:17 PM, mcace...@mozilla.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>
>> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
>> say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
>> support or oppose it. (Given our involvement, w
On 2/2/18 1:25 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2018-01-18 19:05 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 1/8/18 10:17 PM, mcace...@mozilla.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pleas
On 2/2/18 11:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> What you have seems fine (modulo s/Web Auth/Web Authentcation/). The
>> first comment is just housekeeping, whereas the second comment is
>> substantive and concern
On 3/19/18 8:59 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/19/18 1:08 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>> There's a lot of thinking that went into the agreement we have with
>> Cloudflare to enable this experiment in a way that respects user privacy.
>
> I would like us to be very clear that there are two separa
On 3/21/18 9:04 AM, Axel Hecht wrote:
> I have a couple of further questions:
>
> One is about the legal impact on users. DNS mangling is part of law
> enforcement strategies in many parts of the world (incl Germany).
Would you mind describing this in more detail? What kind of DNS mangling
do yo
On 4/29/18 10:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 19:35 L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> OK, here's a draft of an explicit abtension that I can submit later
>> today. Does this seem reasonable?
>>
>
> This looks good to me. Thank you.
+1
We might want to also check in with folks who
And perhaps good reason for removing it from the style guide? ;-)
On 6/25/18 3:08 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote:
> And Kris pointed out that we already had another huge thread on this:
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/WAuySoTfq_w/-DggRotpBQAJ
>
>
> Looks like there w
Adding to what Tom said...
1. "Web developers want the ability to observe the performance
characteristics of their applications" - they want to do so, but
*should* they be allowed to do so? The API would give access to deep
performance data that could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes
(p
Hear, hear and well said!
On 7/19/18 11:53 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> With the proposal for a standard 2D graphics library now on ice [1],
>> members of the C++ standards committee have been investigating
>> alternative
Hi David, thanks for crafting this text. Would it make sense to also
mention countermeasures in the paragraph on privacy? (For instance:
disallowing use of this API for arbitrary origins or restricting access
to specific API methods.)
Given the significant privacy implications, I would lean toward
15 matches
Mail list logo
