Three debug sources are producing link warnings and will be solved as Issue #1676 progresses.
This does not include JS Testing sources.
Specifically: js/src/gdb or js/src/jsapi-tests
While we do fail a couple of tests, the other mainstream browsers also fail them and I think our implementation of tab-size is good enough to be unprefixed at this point. Having this patch also makes testing easier.
Currently -moz-tab-size only accepts <number> values, and both Chrome and Firefox currently support <length> values and have for some time now. So with this you would be able to support sizes in px or em, for instance. This was implemented in Firefox 53 and was trivial to backport.
This prevents a potential race and simplifies the code a bit by keeping the
bytes read separate instead of using mData, which is modified from another
thread from OnDataAvailable.
Relaxed atomics are fine for these, since they don't guard any memory.
Mozilla's original implementation of this failed a couple of tests, but this seems to solve all the problems. Basically, the caret-color wasn't able to be set differently based on whether a link was visited, and the auto value implementation was incomplete. The only test we fail now is the one where you have grey text on a grey background and the caret is supposed to be visible, but I think that may have been removed from the spec. Even if it wasn't, no other browser supports it anyway.
This CSS property allows input carets (that blinking input cursor you see in text fields), to be given a custom color. This was implemented in Firefox 53, and it was such a minor feature that no one ever missed it, but I don't see any harm in implementing this.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1063162
This actually keeps both pseudo-elements for now, since the prefixed version is
still used internally, but we need the unprefixed version for web compat.
Note: while unprefixing a non-spec-compliant pseudo here, it's exactly in line
with what other browsers do. Nobody is following the spec here and at least
we'll be doing what everyone else is with our unprefixed version.
This aligns with the current spec regarding overflow-wrap: break-word and
overflow-wrap: anywhere in if it affects intrinsic sized due to considering
soft-wrap opportunities or not.
See CSS Text Module Level 3, Editor’s Draft, 1 October 2020, Section 5.5
