287142 - RFE: Add options for Themes / Ability for 'subthemes'

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, enhancement)

Description

[Aaron Whitehouse]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050226 Firefox/1.0.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050226 Firefox/1.0.1

I don't know how powerful the theme 'language' is or how easy/sensible it would
be to add more power to the language from a security point of view.

What concerns me is that of the 30-50 themes available, an awful lot seem to be
double-ups with minor differences; Firecat is a prime example (sorry to pick on
one) with about 10 variations. It not only seems wasteful, but when there are
hundreds of themes, the dupes could become unmanageable. 

Ideally, it would seem to me, the 'theme' would include the 3 types of icons
available for the FireCat and the 3 backgrounds. That way if a 'subtheme' of
OceanPaws was chosen, then Background 1 could be mixed with Icons 3. Obviously
this idea could be extended down to individual icons, toolbar sizes etc and I
think that the clarity would be worth the extra size in downloading.

Just a thought - feel free to disagree :)

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

Adding UI support to manage subskins is not something I think we want to get
into.  Note that some skins (i.e. Mostly Crystal) do take advantage of this via
userChrome.css tweaks built in.

Its still a little excessive though.

Comment 2

[Aaron Whitehouse]

I can fully understand that, Mike, just thought that seeing as it occurred to me
I would throw it out there and see where it landed :).

Comment 3

[Nickolay_Ponomarev]

*** Bug 265611 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4

[[e-mail]]

As noted in the original bug 265611 this has been requested often in the forums
too. I do not see why hacking files should be better than a small but very
effective GUI option ... something similar to the "Options" menu as it already
exists for extensions, just simpler. Since there is no other (user-friendly)
mechanism to manage small variations in theming the only alterntive is to have
an inflation of themes where each combination is made into a seperate theme ...
and that sucks a lot more than a simple menu that lets you select a dozen
"subthemes" from the theme manager. 

I think themes should not be able to make their own UI or something, but there
should be a way how to activate groups of CSS statements by name from a menu.
There would be a standardized way how to to do this and the effect would simply
be the same as having a userChrome.css with several blocks of code, of which
only one is not commented out. 

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

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 6

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

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.