Bug 1693277 Comment 2 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

(In reply to Micah Tigley [:mtigley] from comment #1)
> (In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #0)
> > - 8px border radius
> 
> The common dialog is opened using [window.openDialog](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/c8ce16e4299a3afd560320d8d094556f2b5504cd/toolkit/modules/SubDialog.jsm#155-160). Do we have existing styles somewhere for in-content windows?

We'll load the `in-content/common.css` stylesheet via the SubDialog.jsm code. It looks like this might be messy to make work, because the shadow for the dialog is currently generated by the frame, and the background colour is set inside it - so either we need the 8px padding to be on the frame and give it a background colour and the border radius, or we need to move the radius'd border and the box shadow inside the frame. I haven't really checked which of these is going to be easier.

It's probably worth splitting this bug up a bit more...
(In reply to Micah Tigley [:mtigley] from comment #1)
> (In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #0)
> > - 8px border radius
> 
> The common dialog is opened using [window.openDialog](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/c8ce16e4299a3afd560320d8d094556f2b5504cd/toolkit/modules/SubDialog.jsm#155-160). Do we have existing styles somewhere for in-content windows?

We'll load the `in-content/common.css` stylesheet via the SubDialog.jsm code. It looks like this might be messy to make work, because the shadow for the dialog is currently generated by the frame, and the background colour is set inside it - so either we need at least 8px of the padding to be on the frame and give it a background colour and the border radius and th ebox-shadow, or we need to move the radius'd border and the box shadow inside the frame (making everything else transparent). I haven't really checked which of these would be easier.

It's probably worth splitting this bug up a bit more...

Back to Bug 1693277 Comment 2