(Mozilla engineer here) Not directly related to the 62.0 release, but as of today we have EOL'd Firefox ESR 52, which was the last version to support Windows XP and Vista.
(Mozilla engineer here)
Not directly related to the 62.0 release, but as of today we have EOL'd Firefox ESR 52, which was the last version to support Windows XP and Vista.
Well, I no longer have to support any legacy browsers for my current job, allowing me to finally use modern constructs like flexbox and arrow functions, plus I no longer have to support a...
Well, I no longer have to support any legacy browsers for my current job, allowing me to finally use modern constructs like flexbox and arrow functions, plus I no longer have to support a several-years-old legacy code base that I could swear was written by a coked-up baboon with a mental disability, so there's that. Given the choice of dealing with that and trying to support a desktop application that needs to work on both current and legacy Windows systems... I would probably choose the former every single time.
In short: No, I have no idea, and I really hope I never have to learn first-hand.
Not sure if there's anything hugely exciting in this release, but support for CSS Shapes is nice. If you haven't seen them before, they're pretty neat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOB75oTNhw0
Not sure if there's anything hugely exciting in this release, but support for CSS Shapes is nice. If you haven't seen them before, they're pretty neat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOB75oTNhw0
That's actually pretty awesome! You don't really realize how jarring that box-like framing of the circular image is until you see a before and after comparison. It's such a small thing, but it can...
That's actually pretty awesome! You don't really realize how jarring that box-like framing of the circular image is until you see a before and after comparison. It's such a small thing, but it can easily lead to a much more aesthetically-pleasing web!
I don't understand how the browser interprets exactly where in an inherently box-shaped image to create the curve when she adds shape-outside: circle();. I would expect it to create a circular...
I don't understand how the browser interprets exactly where in an inherently box-shaped image to create the curve when she adds shape-outside: circle();. I would expect it to create a circular shape around the box of the image, not overlapping it, as it clearly does in the word "Jeremy" in her first example.
I understand when she draws the polygons that they can overlap the (still inherently a box) image shape, but it seems to be automatically assuming the gap between image edge and the curved object.
I believe it's just creating the largest circle that can fit in the image's box. There's info about the adjustments you can make to the basic shapes here:...
Thanks for that link. I should have dug around a bit more before asking. It's explained under Computed values of basic shapes:
Thanks for that link. I should have dug around a bit more before asking.
It's explained under Computed values of basic shapes:
A <position> value in circle() or ellipse() is computed as a pair of offsets (horizontal then vertical) from the top left origin, each given as a combination of an absolute length and a percentage.
These look cool but it always frustrates me how you basically have to wait 5 years before any of this is feasible in production because of backwards-compatibility.
These look cool but it always frustrates me how you basically have to wait 5 years before any of this is feasible in production because of backwards-compatibility.
Non-supporting browsers will just have square wrapped text, so this is something that can be used right away, so long as it isn't considered vital that the text wraps tightly.
Non-supporting browsers will just have square wrapped text, so this is something that can be used right away, so long as it isn't considered vital that the text wraps tightly.
Some inside track: The existence of this new locale is entirely thanks to the new framework that our localization team has built. Previously, each locale was a completely separate language pack....
Some inside track:
The existence of this new locale is entirely thanks to the new framework that our localization team has built.
Previously, each locale was a completely separate language pack. With the new framework, we can take an existing language pack and essentially apply a special type of diff to it.
Previously it wasn't economical having a completely separate en-CA, but now we can just add a few tweaks to en-US and call it a day.
Interesting, is every locale now a diff of an existing meta-locale or us there a process of sorts which locales get to be madr whole cloth and which are going to be diffs?
Interesting, is every locale now a diff of an existing meta-locale or us there a process of sorts which locales get to be madr whole cloth and which are going to be diffs?
I don't think that many locales have been converted to this diff format yet, but I think the advantage here is that it allows us to produce localized builds for new locales that perhaps hadn't...
I don't think that many locales have been converted to this diff format yet, but I think the advantage here is that it allows us to produce localized builds for new locales that perhaps hadn't seen much love previously.
It kind of depends how fussy people are. en-CA should be extremely similar to en-US overall, but we also technically use more-British spellings for a lot of things like colour and favourite and...
It kind of depends how fussy people are. en-CA should be extremely similar to en-US overall, but we also technically use more-British spellings for a lot of things like colour and favourite and such. Personally, I usually just use the American spellings now, but it would have been considered incorrect in school for me to do that.
What's the reasoning behind Symantec's certificates being nullified now? It seems I missed out on this.
In advance of removing all trust for Symantec-issued certificates in Firefox 63, a preference was added that allows users to distrust certificates issued by Symantec. To use this preference, go to about:config in the address bar and set the preference "security.pki.distrust_ca_policy" to 2.
What's the reasoning behind Symantec's certificates being nullified now? It seems I missed out on this.
Yes. It is important to point out here that this is a coordinated effort with other browsers, and is important to ensure the integrity of the CA system.
Yes. It is important to point out here that this is a coordinated effort with other browsers, and is important to ensure the integrity of the CA system.
(Mozilla engineer here)
Not directly related to the 62.0 release, but as of today we have EOL'd Firefox ESR 52, which was the last version to support Windows XP and Vista.
I imagine that has to feel pretty great!
You have no idea! :D
Well, I no longer have to support any legacy browsers for my current job, allowing me to finally use modern constructs like flexbox and arrow functions, plus I no longer have to support a several-years-old legacy code base that I could swear was written by a coked-up baboon with a mental disability, so there's that. Given the choice of dealing with that and trying to support a desktop application that needs to work on both current and legacy Windows systems... I would probably choose the former every single time.
In short: No, I have no idea, and I really hope I never have to learn first-hand.
Huh?
"End of Life"
Not sure if there's anything hugely exciting in this release, but support for CSS Shapes is nice. If you haven't seen them before, they're pretty neat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOB75oTNhw0
OKAY WHAT
THIS
IS JUST
MINDBLOWING
WHAT
Okay but seriously that is awesome; a non-boxy web is something I've been wanting for a while.
That's actually pretty awesome! You don't really realize how jarring that box-like framing of the circular image is until you see a before and after comparison. It's such a small thing, but it can easily lead to a much more aesthetically-pleasing web!
I don't understand how the browser interprets exactly where in an inherently box-shaped image to create the curve when she adds
shape-outside: circle();. I would expect it to create a circular shape around the box of the image, not overlapping it, as it clearly does in the word "Jeremy" in her first example.I understand when she draws the polygons that they can overlap the (still inherently a box) image shape, but it seems to be automatically assuming the gap between image edge and the curved object.
I believe it's just creating the largest circle that can fit in the image's box. There's info about the adjustments you can make to the basic shapes here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/basic-shape#circle()
Thanks for that link. I should have dug around a bit more before asking.
It's explained under Computed values of basic shapes:
These look cool but it always frustrates me how you basically have to wait 5 years before any of this is feasible in production because of backwards-compatibility.
Non-supporting browsers will just have square wrapped text, so this is something that can be used right away, so long as it isn't considered vital that the text wraps tightly.
Oh my god, that's gorgeous. I never really grasped how much BOX the web really has.
Stupid question maybe, but what does this mean in practice? Does it need to be distinct from the en-US locale?
Some inside track:
The existence of this new locale is entirely thanks to the new framework that our localization team has built.
Previously, each locale was a completely separate language pack. With the new framework, we can take an existing language pack and essentially apply a special type of diff to it.
Previously it wasn't economical having a completely separate en-CA, but now we can just add a few tweaks to en-US and call it a day.
Interesting, is every locale now a diff of an existing meta-locale or us there a process of sorts which locales get to be madr whole cloth and which are going to be diffs?
I don't think that many locales have been converted to this diff format yet, but I think the advantage here is that it allows us to produce localized builds for new locales that perhaps hadn't seen much love previously.
It kind of depends how fussy people are. en-CA should be extremely similar to en-US overall, but we also technically use more-British spellings for a lot of things like colour and favourite and such. Personally, I usually just use the American spellings now, but it would have been considered incorrect in school for me to do that.
This BBC article about it that I just found seems decent: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150820-why-is-canadian-english-unique
What's the reasoning behind Symantec's certificates being nullified now? It seems I missed out on this.
This page goes over the issues that led to it: https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Symantec_Issues
Yes. It is important to point out here that this is a coordinated effort with other browsers, and is important to ensure the integrity of the CA system.