301482 - Tooltip should not directly reappear after clicking on an element with a titletip

Status: NEW

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Normally when hovering over an element with a titletip, you get a tooltip.
However, after clicking on the element, you get different behaviors in browsers.

In Opera8, the tooltip won't reappear until after you've left the element and
hovered over again.
This is also the case for IE6, but only for the chrome area, for the content
area it is the same as for Mozilla currently.

Comment 1

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Attachment: patch

This makes Mozilla behave like Opera8.

Comment 2

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Boris, do you have any idea about this behavior? Is this wanted for Mozilla? Do
you know any person, who can decide?

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Sounds like a ui person kinda thing to decide...

Comment 4

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Mike, what do you think about the patch.
Alternatively, the tooltip appearing could be disabled while the mouse button is pressed. I think that could prevent stray tooltips appearing at linux and mac while dragging bookmarks, for instance.

Comment 5

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #4)
> I think that could prevent stray tooltips appearing at linux and
> mac while dragging bookmarks, for instance.

[Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9b4pre) Gecko/2008022702 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre] (nightly) (W2Ksp4)

This is now the case on Windows too: see bug 420341 comment 0.

Comment 6

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

Sounds like this should be decided by UI owners, not by the blocking1.9? nomination process.

Comment 7

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Alternatively, the tooltip appearing could be disabled while the mouse button

That is the behavior I get with Windows MsIE v6 while D&Ding a bookmark within a menu.

> is pressed. I think that could prevent stray tooltips appearing at linux and
> mac while dragging bookmarks, for instance.

Could you provide such a patch, as you suggested in bug 420341 comment 2 ?

Comment 8

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Comment on attachment 189934 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

See previous comments about if this is what/how we want or not.

Comment 9

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Could you provide such a patch, as you suggested in bug 420341 comment 2 ?

Serge, it turns out this is bug 312852, I'll attach a patch there.
It's related to this bug, so I'm adding a dependancy.

Comment 10

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Comment on attachment 189934 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Obsoleting, per comment 9:
bug 312852 does have an "updated" version of this patch.

Comment 11

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Well, the patch attached to this bug was a slightly different variant, namely what this bug title was about. I was trying to get ui-review from Beltzner for it, to see what his opinion was about it.

Comment 12

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Maybe undo my obsoleting ... or set the review request on the new patch:
I though it confusing to have two patches almost the same in two different bugs...

Comment 13

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Comment on attachment 189934 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Yeah, it's a bit confusing, I know.
But I think I still would like this behavior.

Comment 14

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Comment on attachment 189934 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Unobsoleting, since martijn set "ui‑review=?" (back).

The differences I see between the two patch:
*2005 <-> 2008 code: minor bitrot I guess.
*|mHadMouseDown| <-> |mIsMouseDown| var. name.
*(nothing) <-> |MouseUp()| too.

To reduce confusion, I feel like having a few words of yours about how the behavior differs between the two patches would help ... as we can obviously keep only one of then in the end.

Comment 15

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Well, see comment 0. That's mainly what this bug is about.

Comment 16

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Comment on attachment 189934 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

This patch isn't technically correct, although I would still like to have an opinion if this bug is something we want.

Comment 17

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #15)
> Well, see comment 0. That's mainly what this bug is about.

Sure, but that does answer my question about the two patches;
then, maybe I'm the only one "confused" here.
(Forget about it: as long as we get some progress in one of the bugs...)

Comment 18

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #17)
> Sure, but that does answer my question about the two patches;

s/does/does not/

Comment 19

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

Mass-removing myself from cc; search for 12b9dfe4-ece3-40dc-8d23-60e179f64ac1 or any reasonable part thereof, to mass-delete these notifications (and sorry!)

Comment 20

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

The bug assignee is inactive on Bugzilla, so the assignee is being reset.