Closed
Bug 386971
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
expose editor from nsIAccEditableText
Categories
(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)
Core
Disability Access APIs
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: surkov, Assigned: surkov)
Details
(Keywords: access)
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
4.31 KB,
patch
|
ginnchen+exoracle
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
2.68 KB,
patch
|
ginnchen+exoracle
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Attachment #271047 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen)
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•18 years ago
|
||
fix
Attachment #271047 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #271055 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen)
Attachment #271047 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen)
Comment on attachment 271055 [details] [diff] [review]
patch2
I think we want [noscript] for editor.
Also there's a extra space.
+ * @param startPos - start index of the text whose attributes are modified.
+ * @param endPos - end index of the text whose attributes are modified.
Attachment #271055 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2)
> (From update of attachment 271055 [details] [diff] [review])
> I think we want [noscript] for editor.
Why?
Comment 4•18 years ago
|
||
Surkov, noscript is just an extra level of security. There's no reason to allow an extension to get hold of an nsIEditor, so why let them? It's better to reduce the attack surface as they say.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•18 years ago
|
||
checked in with Ginn's comments
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Does it work?
I got
./../html/nsHyperTextAccessible.h:74: warning: virtual nsresult nsHyperTextAccessible::GetEditor(nsIEditor**) was hidden
nsDocAccessible.h:128: warning: by virtual already_AddRefed<nsIEditor> nsDocAccessible::GetEditor()
./../html/nsHyperTextAccessible.h:74: warning: virtual nsresult nsHyperTextAccessible::GetEditor(nsIEditor**) was hidden
./../html/nsHTMLFormControlAccessible.h:122: warning: by virtual already_AddRefed<nsIEditor> nsHTMLTextFieldAccessible::GetEditor()
./../html/nsHyperTextAccessible.h:74: warning: virtual nsresult nsHyperTextAccessible::GetEditor(nsIEditor**) was hidden
./../xul/nsXULFormControlAccessible.h:175: warning: by virtual already_AddRefed<nsIEditor> nsXULTextFieldAccessible::GetEditor()
./../html/nsHyperTextAccessible.h:74: warning: virtual nsresult nsHyperTextAccessible::GetEditor(nsIEditor**) was hidden
./../xforms/nsXFormsAccessible.h:155: warning: by virtual already_AddRefed<nsIEditor> nsXFormsEditableAccessible::GetEditor()
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•18 years ago
|
||
Ginn, I'm not sure accessibleEditor is perfect name, but I can't think something better. Probably you will suggest more appropriate name.
Attachment #271821 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen)
what about GetAssociatedEditor?
Or maybe we can change
virtual already_AddRefed<nsIEditor> ns*Accessible::GetEditor()
to
GetEditorInternal()
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8)
> what about GetAssociatedEditor?
I like this.
> Or maybe we can change
> virtual already_AddRefed<nsIEditor> ns*Accessible::GetEditor()
> to
> GetEditorInternal()
>
I thought about this but it leads to mass renaming. Also we have SetEditor/CheckForEditor() and I don't know how they should be renamed.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•18 years ago
|
||
Attachment #271821 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #271842 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen)
Attachment #271821 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen)
Attachment #271842 -
Flags: review?(ginn.chen) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•18 years ago
|
||
checked in
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago → 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•