1159631 - class="addon-sdk-api-name" not applied in edit mode

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(developer.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Editing, defect)

Description

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

What did you do?
================
1. Go to: 
2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/Low-Level_APIs/stylesheet_style$edit

What happened?
==============
The class is applied in user mode but not in edit mode: addon-sdk-api-name

What should have happened?
==========================
It should.

Is there anything else we should know?
======================================

Comment 1

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

Attachment: Style (options) correct in user mode

Comment 2

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

Attachment: Style (options) incorrect in edit mode

Comment 3

[Luke Crouch [:groovecoder]]

:davidwalsh - could this be caused by new ckeditor allowable content config?

Comment 4

[David Walsh :davidwalsh]

Tried to reproduce on both local and prod and could not.

:teoli:  If you add the class in "source" mode, go back WYSIWYG mode, and then back to source mode again, is the class still there? Also, which browser?

The only things I can think of that *could* be causing the problem is: 

(1) teoli having a cached version of ckeditor_config.js, which led us to make an update yesterday

(2) CKEditor's parser is choking on this line: https://github.com/mozilla/kuma/blob/master/kuma/wiki/templates/wiki/ckeditor_config.js#L90

...where we're trying to prevent "on*****" attributes on elements, since teoli's sample class name contains "on-"

Comment 5

[Stephanie Hobson [:shobson]]

The problem is that the class is in the zone CSS and zone CSS is not applied to the editing pages.

We could solve it by moving the style in to the customcss.styl file.

I would like to make the class name much more general/reusable if that is the approach we would like to take, but I don't know how widely used it is within this zone and how much work that would be.

Comment 6

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

NI Will as he manages (or managed) this zone.

Comment 7

[Will Bamberg [:wbamberg]]

So... the idea of this is that is helps emphasize method and property names, so they don't get lost in a welter of headings. It also carries over the general appearance from when the docs were on AMO.

It's very widely used inside the Add-on SDK docs.

I don't think it makes sense for this to be used outside the Add-on SDK docs. Other API reference docs use different styles. If we were starting fresh, we might not choose this particular solution, but from where we are now, IMO it's not worth adapting these docs to a different style. I intentionally used a very specific name because I don't think it makes sense to use it outside this zone.

I am OK with it not appearing in the editor.

I am more or less OK with removing it, if that is seen as important, although I do think it's nice to have.

Comment 8

[Stephanie Hobson [:shobson]]

It would be a not-inconsequential amount of work to change this and it sounds like it's okay where it is for the person who uses it the most. I would like to mark this won't fix if it's okay with teoli.

Comment 9

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

Sounds ok for me. Didn't noticed it was zone-specific.