1640400 - Remove dom.link.disabled_attribute.enabled.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect)

Comment 1

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

Attachment: Bug 1640400 - Remove dom.link.disabled_attribute.enabled. r=#style

We've shipped this since bug 1281135 (Firefox 68).

Comment 2

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/6545a72e30fa
Remove dom.link.disabled_attribute.enabled. r=jwatt

Comment 3

[Cosmin Sabou [:CosminS]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6545a72e30fa

Comment 4

[j.j.]

Does this change the behaviour described in MDN?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1640400
If so, please set keyword "devdoc-needed"

Comment 5

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

No, this keeps the behavior that we've shipped since Firefox 68.

Comment 6

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Have we had any other reports of this breaking sites besides Cognos?

Wondering if we should leave it in 78 (so it stays on one ESR cycle) and pull in 79.

Do we know when full Chrome support will be in?

Comment 7

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

[Tracking Requested - why for this release]: Let's back this out from the beta branch once the merge happens. Requesting tracking so we don't forget.

(In reply to Mike Kaply [:mkaply] from comment #6)

Have we had any other reports of this breaking sites besides Cognos?

Only another one slightly earlier than that (bug 1546707), which I fixed myself.

Wondering if we should leave it in 78 (so it stays on one ESR cycle) and pull in 79.

I'm happy to back this out from beta, once the merge happens, if you're fine with it. Mostly trying to avoid churn of backing out then relanding this patch.

Do we know when full Chrome support will be in?

Chrome is implementing this atm, their behavior is pretty close to ours already. According to their intent email:

Chrome will implement this modified behavior starting in M85.

Not sure what that is in terms of dates.

Comment 8

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Thinking about this more, since this shipped in the previous ESR, we should leave it.

We never publicized the pref and only got two breakages.

If enterprises were going to break, it would have already happened.

Comment 9

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

Emilio, should I leave things as-is for 78 after all as per comment 8?

Comment 10

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

Either way is fine for me, I guess it's your / Mike's call :)

Comment 11

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Yes, leave things as is.