Open
Bug 259721
Opened 20 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
Apply userChrome to inspected chrome in DOMI
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, enhancement, P5)
Core
DOM: Core & HTML
Tracking
()
NEW
People
(Reporter: Bugzilla-alanjstrBugs, Unassigned)
Details
if I inspect chrome://browser/content/browser.xul, my userChrome isn't being
applied. For example, I have the following
#search-container,#searchbar {
-moz-box-flex: 400 !important;
}
Which works on the browser, but not when I inspect it.
![]() |
||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
You're loading the chrome:// file in the browser content area of inspector? Or
what?
I type chrome://browser/content/browser.xul in the box and click Inspect. It
brings up a fully functional web browser in the lower half. But my userChrome
changes aren't applied. Menu items that should be hidden, aren't. The theme is
applied.
![]() |
||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Not an inspector issue.
The problem is that nsDocumentViewer chooses the sheet based on the docshell
type. You'd have the same problem loading in a content area in the browser, for
example.
I don't know whether it would make sense to select the sheet based on the
document URI, not the docshell type...
Assignee: dom-inspector → general
Component: DOM Inspector → DOM
OS: Windows 2000 → All
QA Contact: timeless → ian
Hardware: PC → All
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
Sounds reasonable to me; chrome documents are likely to have chrome URIs. Of
course, things like about:config and mozilla -chrome confuse matters...
![]() |
||
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Well, that's the question. What's the real purpose of userChrome.css?
I assume you're looking for an answer other than
http://www.mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html
![]() |
||
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
Yes. That page describes what is (and doesn't clearly specify which documents
userChrome.css applies to, anyway). My question is about what should be.
Well, it applies to the chrome in the browser/mail/etc client. That probably
applies to the the chrome of DOMI itself, too.
userContent.css applies inside of DOMI, right?
![]() |
||
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
> Well, it applies to the chrome in the browser/mail/etc client.
"What is chrome?"
> userContent.css applies inside of DOMI, right?
Yes. What's inside DOMI is just a <browser> (just like the mailnews message
display area, the view-source display area, the display areas in browser
windows, etc, etc). It's a non-chrome docshell (whatever that may mean), so
userContent applies.
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
userContent should apply to contents of <browser>s.
userChrome should apply to everything else.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
Why is it invalid? Because its on purpose?
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
Yeah, please explain why it's invalid if you mark it invalid...
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
![]() |
||
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
Inspector is using a <browser>, on purpose (because the content it loads is not
part of the chrome; it's just content being loaded). I said this pretty clearly
in comment 9.
Then Neil applied comment 10 to the situation.
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
If its on purpose, then I'll change this to an RFE.
Severity: normal → enhancement
Summary: userChrome not applied in DOMI window → Apply userChrome to inspected chrome in DOMI
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
If you want this RFE to get anywhere, you'll have to explain exactly what
"chrome" is if it isn't what I said.
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
URIs that begin with chrome:// like chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
Comment 17•20 years ago
|
||
I disagree with that definition, it would make non-chrome URIs loaded usings
-chrome to not use userChrome.css, which is IMHO wrong.
It would also mean that any random HTML page loaded from chrome:// would not be
styled using userContent.css, which is IMHO also wrong.
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•20 years ago
|
||
Can you give me an example of loading random html with chrome:// ?
Worst comes to worst, this situation would be three separate RFE's, no?
Comment 19•20 years ago
|
||
> Can you give me an example of loading random html with chrome:// ?
An extension could easily do this e.g. for a credits page.
> Worst comes to worst, this situation would be three separate RFE's, no?
I don't understand.
Reporter | ||
Comment 20•20 years ago
|
||
> > Worst comes to worst, this situation would be three separate RFE's, no?
>
> I don't understand.
One RFE that says "apply userChrome to chrome:// URIs inspected"
One for inspecting -chrome launched
afaik, userContent is already applied. Or at least it was inside of
browser.xul. This is out of my depth. I just know that I want DOMI to apply
userChrome to chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
Comment 21•19 years ago
|
||
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".
This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.
While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.
If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
Comment 22•19 years ago
|
||
This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago → 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → EXPIRED
Updated•15 years ago
|
Assignee: general → nobody
QA Contact: ian → general
Comment 23•7 years ago
|
||
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1472046
Move all DOM bugs that haven't been updated in more than 3 years and has no one currently assigned to P5.
If you have questions, please contact :mdaly.
Priority: -- → P5
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•