callahad

78 ms·

751.
by callahad 11y ago
Yep! If you're rather read about the features, we've got a blog post up at https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/11/developer-edition-44-creat... The DevTools Challenger page is meant to be a more hands-on set
752.
by callahad 11y ago
We aren't officially supporting Win64 with Firefox 42, but we are producing builds which you can find at http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/42.0/win64/ There are only a few bugs
753.
by callahad 11y ago
Node.js modules: from brand new to "unsupported legacy hell" in "a year or two." There's no way this is sustainable, but I'm at a loss of how to fix it, especially when the ECMAScript language itself is evolvin
754.
by callahad 11y ago
This looks fun. Any word on ballpark pricing or the duration of the beta? (or at least a lower bound on anticipated pricing -- will there be plans that are suitable for hobbyists who are otherwise on DO's $5-10/mo tier.)
755.
by callahad 11y ago
Persona didn't have the notion of a global password -- the ideal flow had you authenticating with your email provider, on their domain, which was often completely transparent in cases where you were already signed in to that provider.
756.
by callahad 11y ago
> Passwordless works for users whose email providers are not also major OAuth providers, which is nice, but also pretty niche. You're making a flawed assumption that just because a major email provider offers OAuth, that websites
757.
by callahad 11y ago
In these cases it's really helpful to recognize the distinction between the Mozilla Foundation (MoFo), the Mozilla Corporation (MoCo), and the broader, open source Mozilla project that binds everyone together. The non-profit Mozilla Fo
758.
by callahad 11y ago
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Identity/Persona_AAR is a pretty good place to start.
759.
by callahad 11y ago
> I don't think any of the Mozilla-branded sites ever used it You're right that AMO never used Persona, but a ton of Mozilla's other sites used (and still use) it. MDN, Bugzilla, Etherpad, the Firefox Marketplace, most
760.
by callahad 11y ago
Please take what we learned with Persona and build upon it, much like we built upon lessons learned from OpenID and OAuth. The Web needs this. As long as we keep trying, one day, someone will get it right.
761.
by callahad 11y ago
If you're looking for positive intent, maybe propose that sites explicitly set the sizes attribute? Either way, you're asking folks to modify their <head>. Embracing the icon rel avoids duplicating effort.
762.
by callahad 11y ago
Maybe I'm missing the point of some Open Graph properties, but in this case... what's wrong with just using the HTML standard <link rel="icon" href="/path.png"> tag, which is already well-specified,
763.
by callahad 11y ago
It means certs signed by Let's Encrypt will work just fine for people without any special setup. See https://helloworld.letsencrypt.org/ for an example. This does not , however, mean that we can all start using Let&#x
764.
by callahad 11y ago
> "Are there any problems with serving pages as application/xhtml+xml?" That was more relevant when XHTML was still vying to be the future of markup on the web. The issue was that the XHTML content type mandated a strict X
765.
by callahad 11y ago
Almost entirely residential; the closest they get to downtown is still about a 10 minute walk. I'm terrible at ballparking these things, but an average block in that area probably has around 15 duplexes/triplexes and 3-4 low-rise
766.
by callahad 11y ago
The article missed mentioning Minneapolis, which has been offering symmetric 10Gbps since December, 2014. Residential 10Gbps costs $399/mo, but normal 1Gbps is quite affordable at $65/mo: http://fiber.usinternet.com&#x2
767.
by callahad 11y ago
Look into the history of Viaweb :)
768.
by callahad 11y ago
s/subset of/overlapping set with/ AMPHTML whitelists a handful of HTML tags, but adds a bunch of its own custom elements, like <amp-instagram>, <amp-img>, and <amp-ad> on top. It's neither a subset nor
769.
by callahad 11y ago
But it's not, really. It's HTML + a mandatory web components polyfill and standard library loaded from a remote origin. If I just rendered the HTML, I wouldn't see any images or videos, because they're hidden behind cust
770.
by callahad 11y ago
<img> and <video> are also prohibited in favor of mandatory custom elements like <amp-img> and <amp-video>. ...and vendor-specific tags like <amp-youtube>, <amp-twitter>, and <amp-instagram>, the li
771.
by callahad 11y ago
If you'd like to follow along on the Firefox side, CC yourself on https://bugzil.la/1185106
772.
by callahad 11y ago
Depending on which transforms you enable, you can also eliminate Regenerator and use native ES6 promises and generators. E.g: https://gist.github.com/callahad/b99c83d6d9fd675137b7 Promises are sufficiently supported in
773.
by callahad 11y ago
> as far as I can tell, there's no native getJSON function There is a standard, native fetch() function which is pretty darn similar: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/03/this-api-is-so-fetching/
774.
by callahad 11y ago
Sure, ES6 WeakMap and WeakSet can't be implemented without native support in the runtime. Or, for that matter, const. Though perhaps const is just syntatic sugar for not reassigning to the same darn name? ;)
775.
by callahad 11y ago
Like other web standards, these things tend to get implemented in a piecemeal fashion according to consensus and demand. By the time the standards are published, much of their content is already implemented in modern browsers. For example,
776.
by callahad 11y ago
You can actually get identical semantics, and almost identical syntax, by abusing ES6 generators, so it is just syntactic sugar: https://gist.github.com/callahad/b99c83d6d9fd675137b7
777.
by callahad 11y ago
Touché :)
778.
by callahad 11y ago
My understanding is that Mozilla is primarily just a sponsor of ISRG, the non-profit behind Let's Encrypt. Some of their sponsorship includes dedicated engineering time, but LetsEncrypt still has to pass all the same audits and require
779.
by callahad 11y ago
Ah, that is a bit misleading. When it says "just click the link," it's referring to the process for installing the root certificate. It should read "specifics will depend on your browser. In Firefox, just click the link
780.
by callahad 11y ago
Incorrect. Inclusion into the Firefox root store is being tracked in https://bugzil.la/1204656 and has not yet been resolved. Firefox trusts the cert on TFA because letsencrypt.org itself is using a certificate signed by Id

More ›