41–50 of 105 posts
If you're wondering what "unicode 8 skin-tone emoji" is about, here you go: http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversity Hmmmm, I'm on ff 40.0a2 and they don't render for me: http://emojipedia.org/man-with-dark-brown-skin-tone/
This is bullshit.
Surprised by the inclusion of "CSS Scroll Snap Points": https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/scroll-snap... It basically allows to do scroll hijacking [1] without any JavaScript, just like this: http://blog.gospodarets.com/demos/scroll-snap-full-screen/ [1]: http://trentwalton.com/2013/10/23/scroll-hijacking/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it.
> How so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. > But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it. I'm not white, and I have a problem with "skin tone" emoji. Previously, skin tones for emoji were left up to the font creator. In practice, this meant that they were usually lime green, neon blue, or Simpsons yellow, all of which are cartoonish enough not…
That's not true, IME -- in several of the popular emoji fonts I've seen that don't incorporate specific "skin tone emoji", most emoji for people that aren't expressly silhouettes are white, except a very small number which are black (in both cases, within the range of flesh tones usually associated with those as races, not cartoonish colors.)
EDIT: This is not true of "smiley face" emoji, but of other emoji representing humans or human body parts.
So, they finally fixed Logjam, 1 month and a half after publication. Chrome still hasn't fixed it. Color me unimpressed.
Since Chromium is open source, you can contribute to the project. I'm sure if you send a quality patch to the Chromium dev team to fix Logjam, they'd be willing to review it. Did you try to contribute to Chromium and Firefox to speed up fixing the Logjam issue ?
No. The issue isn't that it's (so) hard to fix; the fix in 39 has been out for a while, they just didn't want to release it for the stable release, which means few people got it. (In fact, some distros apparently fixed their versions earlier [1]).
On Firefox, you could manually fix it in 2 minutes [2]
I'm not familiar with the codebases, so it would take me longer to make a patch, but it really should not take 2 months to release to stable a fix that affected 8.4% [3] of popular websites, especially for a company like Google.
The tinfoil hat in me says certain things about this, considering that logjam was likely known by the NSA, but then again I can't prove anything.
I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more talk about this, actually. A major security hole going unfixed for months after public disclosure should have had more chatter.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9702061 [2] http://techdows.com/2015/05/how-to-make-firefox-browser-safe... [3] https://weakdh.org/
I love that the Fetch API is happening (has happened!): https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Fetch_API fetch(url).then(data => ...) Not earth-shattering, but much more fun than XHR!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only recently discovered that Unicode characters can now have colour in them, and frankly, I'm disappointed that we're adding complexity to an already hugely complex topic.
Unicode characters don't have colour in them, much as they do not have a shape either. The Unicode standard does not specify the exact visual representation of any codepoint. No, fonts can have colour in them. This isn't a new thing, colour fonts have been around for decades. However, they're particularly useful for emoji.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it.
I have never thought of emoji as having any particular skin colour, until this recent trend to make skin colour selectable. Emoticons and emoji have traditionally been displayed as yellow cirlces with large faces. White emojis have been the exception, not the rule. I have never had a problem with being represented by a character with Jaundice (a medical condition turning your skin yellow).
If your skin color is already represented you have the privilege of not having to worry about inclusivity of others being represented.
However, I'm not sure this applies to you since I'm not sure what race you are.
And yet there are still issues on my Sandy Bridge system with display corruption even with the latest Intel drivers. Also has anyone else noticed that Firefox is no longer keeping the page state when navigating back? For example on Reddit go to the comments section, minimize a few comments then navigate to a link then go back and none of the minimized comments remain minimized, in Firefox prior to 38 things worked co…
If you're wondering what "unicode 8 skin-tone emoji" is about, here you go: http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversity Hmmmm, I'm on ff 40.0a2 and they don't render for me: http://emojipedia.org/man-with-dark-brown-skin-tone/
You’ll need to have a font installed that supports them, Firefox does not bundle fonts for emoji ;)