Closed Bug 313174 Opened 17 years ago Closed 17 years ago

IME composition string isn't rendered as selection text

Categories

(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
Layout: Text and Fonts
Platform:
x86
BeOS
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
blocker

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: masayuki, Assigned: masayuki)

References

Details

(Keywords: inputmethod, intl, regression)

Attachments

(1 file)

Patch rv1.0
944 bytes, patch
sergei_d
: review+
bzbarsky
: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review 
Bug-org 242315 is fixed. But it may have a regression.
On Be-OS, we don't render the composition string as selection text.
This is serious regression.
Bug-org 242315 -> Bug 242315
fix is simple, adding || defined(XP_BEOS), as BeOS supports InvertRect
Attached patch Patch rv1.0 — — Splinter Review 
Maybe, fix.
Attachment #200247 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #200247 - Flags: review?(roc)
i can review patch from BeOS side - as it worked for me and Koki-san at selection.
But does it need sr ?
Comment on attachment 200247 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch rv1.0

> But does it need sr ?

Yes.
Attachment #200247 - Flags: review?(roc) → review?(sergei_d)
How it looks in BeOS with patch applied:
http://beos.spb.ru/mozilla/BeIMEInvertRect.png
Comment on attachment 200247 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch rv1.0

r=sergei_d
Attachment #200247 - Flags: review?(sergei_d) → review+
looks good.
sorry, forget to set Haru font for screenshot - problem with Harus is that it
produces wrong spacing (double) for cyrillic letters (my default locale is
Russian) in BeOS. But result is understandable anyway
I can see the selection rendering. It's enough. Thanks.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Boris:

Could you superreview to this?
This patch is very simple and this is blocker bug for BeOS user.
# I tried to contact to roc, but I don't have his reply...
Comment on attachment 200247 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch rv1.0

sr=bzbarsky, though I have some questions:

1)  If it's a blocker, why wasn't blocking? requested?  The chance of getting this into 1.8 is about 0 at this point.

2)  Why do we need this whitelist of XP* stuff?  Why not just USE_INVERT_RECT on anything that's not Mac?
Attachment #200247 - Flags: superreview?(roc) → superreview+
> 1
Bug 242315 is not going to 1.8 branch.

> 2
Mac is changed by bug 236996.
# And I will rewrite these code in 1.9 cycle.
checked-in to Trunk.

Sergei:

If you need approval for this, you should request it.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Niels has his own plans about 1.8* - he decided to skip RC1 as far as i know.
Usually it is his job/privilege to set approval requests for 1.8(FF 1.5).
Just so people are clear, RC1 is a real RC.  That's the code we'll ship unless something comes up that's stop-ship.
It's clear, however, I sort of hope that (In reply to comment #16)
> Just so people are clear, RC1 is a real RC.  That's the code we'll ship unless
> something comes up that's stop-ship.

I'm sort of hoping that that would be the case. Anyway, else I'll just release a build with custom patches, so it's not a major problem.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.