Remove the ability to override the node name using XBL.
Categories
(Core :: Layout, task, P3)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox67 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: emilio, Assigned: emilio)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
Paolo, I still see a couple of display="xul:button" in https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=display%3D%22&path=xml (for the button
and toolbarbutton
bindings). Can those be removed as well, or is this related somehow to Bug 1512993? I don't see those instances being removed in the patch over in that bug.
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Brian Grinstead [:bgrins] from comment #10)
is this related somehow to Bug 1512993?
Yes, that bug is about either removing the display="xul:menu" variants, which Neil didn't recommend to avoid code duplication, or implementing dynamic frame switching when the "type" attribute changes as Emilio mentioned. The second solution would probably get rid of the "display" directive in the same patch.
Comment 12•6 years ago
•
|
||
Other than bug 1512993, do we know what we are going to do with display="xul:button"
?
I looked at it a bit and it looks like we only map <xul:button>
tag to XULButtonBoxFrame
. There were no signs of references to <xul:toolbarbutton>
that would map the tag to the frame.
- For the button binding, does the
display="xul:button"
value is actually redundant? - For the toolbarbutton binding, does a simple copy-paste fix of the line above makes the
display="xul:button"
redundant?
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tim Guan-tin Chien [:timdream] (please needinfo) from comment #12)
- For the button binding, does the
display="xul:button"
value is actually redundant?
Yes, since the "button" binding is now only applied to the "button" element.
- For the toolbarbutton binding, does a simple copy-paste fix of the line above makes the
display="xul:button"
redundant?
Yes, although as I understand it both lines would need to change as soon as the frame type becomes conditional on the "type" attribute. Emilio knows what needs to happen here in that case.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
I think it should be done in that bug, terribly sorry for the lag.
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•6 years ago
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 18•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to (Unavailable until March 11) Brian Grinstead [:bgrins] from comment #7)
Jorg, if TB has any bindings that use the [display] / [extends] attribute on
<binding> they will need to be migrated away from using it after this patch
(which depends on a bit more work being done on the m-c side before it can
land).
Why also 'extends'? Surely not all of them. m-c also uses a few of them.
So which cases of 'extends' (as in extending a XBL binding) and what is the replacement?
Comment 19•6 years ago
|
||
If only extends="xul:*" is meant, then that's fine.
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to :aceman from comment #19)
If only extends="xul:*" is meant, then that's fine/
Yes, only extends="xul:", which is effectively just display="xul:".
Comment 21•6 years ago
|
||
What about <binding name=""> ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•6 years ago
|
||
That has nothing to do with this.
Updated•6 years ago
|
Description
•