Update firefox-chromium.html comparison regarding font restriction in Fireox #82
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… Firefox The linked bug report here actually states it has been fixed in Firefox in version 117, so I've updated the statement. I am not sure about the details so feel free to adjust if, but the linked bug is closed, so the statement there certainly needs updating.
Though I am unsure here, the comment/changeset says: > RDD, Utility, GMP and Socket processes That said, the article explains Firefox has no socket process, so either it does have it now or there is something else I don' t get?
|
I tried updating the table, but that was hard. As per my commit:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The linked bug report here actually states it has been fixed in Firefox in version 117, so I've updated the statement.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1689128
I am not sure about the details so feel free to adjust if, but the linked bug is closed, so the statement there certainly needs updating.