Closed Bug 624295 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

css enhancements for editBMPanel

Categories

(Firefox :: Theme, defect)

x86
macOS
defect
Not set
trivial

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 4.0b10

People

(Reporter: stefanh, Assigned: stefanh)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 6 obsolete files)

While doing bug 620132, I found some stuff that could be improved a bit. It's basically getting rid of some important rules, descendant selectors. I also spotted a new thing; the checkbox list-style-image could be switched to a background-image (override the one in listbox.css instead of adding a list-style-image).
Attached patch Fix style rules (obsolete) — Splinter Review
I did some more in bug 620132, but I don't think you're interested in that (grouped focus rules etc together and styled a hidden checkbox).
Assignee: nobody → stefanh
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #502400 - Flags: review?(dao)
Comment on attachment 502400 [details] [diff] [review] Fix style rules >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-up, >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-down:hover:active { >+.expander-up, >+.expander-down:hover:active { > list-style-image: url("chrome://browser/skin/hud-style-expander-open.png") !important; > } > >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-down, >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-up:hover:active { >+.expander-down, >+.expander-up:hover:active { > list-style-image: url("chrome://browser/skin/hud-style-expander-closed.png") !important; > } Extensions may use this class in browser.xul but outside of the panel, so I don't think these changes are correct.
Attached patch New version (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Yeah, you're right. How about this? Might be an overkill, but I couldn't resist. Otherwise I'll just keep the old rules.
Attachment #502400 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #502474 - Flags: review?(dao)
Attachment #502400 - Flags: review?(dao)
I think we should keep the old selectors.
Attached patch Keep rules (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Btw, note that extensions will get pushbutton styling if they use the expander classes. But I suppose that's better than the arrow-panel look.
Attachment #502474 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #502480 - Flags: review?(dao)
Attachment #502474 - Flags: review?(dao)
Comment on attachment 502480 [details] [diff] [review] Keep rules >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-up, >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-down { >+#editBMPanel_foldersExpander, >+#editBMPanel_tagsSelectorExpander { > @hudButton@ > border-radius: 3px; > -moz-margin-start: 4px; > -moz-margin-end: 2px; > padding: 0; > -moz-padding-start: 4px; > min-width: 10px; > min-height: 20px; > } > >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-up:-moz-focusring, >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-down:-moz-focusring { >+#editBMPanel_foldersExpander:-moz-focusring, >+#editBMPanel_tagsSelectorExpander:-moz-focusring { > @hudButtonFocused@ > } > >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-up:hover:active, >-#editBookmarkPanel .expander-down:hover:active { >+#editBMPanel_foldersExpander:hover:active, >+#editBMPanel_tagsSelectorExpander:hover:active { > @hudButtonPressed@ > } Please also avoid these changes.
Attachment #502480 - Flags: review?(dao) → review+
I also removed a change that wasn't supposed to be there: #customizeToolbarSheetPopup { -moz-window-shadow: sheet; + -moz-appearance: none; + background-color: transparent; }
Comment on attachment 502494 [details] [diff] [review] For check-in, comment #6 addressed css-cleanup, small and safe.
Attachment #502494 - Flags: approval2.0?
Attached patch Final version (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Sorry, just found one thing I want to fix... The only new thing here is the "#editBMPanel_tagsSelector .listcell-check" background-color put together with the new "background" and the listbox.css adjustment (I suddenly remember that I forgot to remove that in 2009 and sooner or later someone will remove the no-repeat from there and regress the panel).
Attachment #502480 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #502494 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #502953 - Flags: review?(dao)
Attachment #502494 - Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 502953 [details] [diff] [review] Final version > #editBMPanel_tagsSelector .listcell-check { >- -moz-appearance: none !important; >- background-color: transparent; >+ -moz-appearance: none; > border: 0; >- list-style-image: url("chrome://browser/skin/hud-style-check-box-empty.png"); >+ background: transparent url("chrome://browser/skin/hud-style-check-box-empty.png") no-repeat 50% 50%; remove 'transparent' > .listcell-check[checked="true"] { >- background-image: url("chrome://global/skin/checkbox/cbox-check.gif"); >+ background-image: url("chrome://global/skin/checkbox/cbox-check.gif") no-repeat 50% 50%; > } background-image doesn't support these values.
Attachment #502953 - Flags: review?(dao) → review-
Agh. OK, so this would also mean that I can remove the -moz-field background-color of the -listcell-check in listbox-css since using 'background' instead of background-image will override it anyway. Anyway, will look at it tomorrow.
Attached patch A new final version (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Sorry for the confusion, I should go to bed earlier :-( OK, so I think it's better to keep the background-color in listbox.css despite my previous comment. Another option would be to leave out the listbox.css changes while keeping all the other changes.
Attachment #502953 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #503197 - Flags: review?(dao)
Please leave out the listbox.css.
(In reply to comment #13) > Please leave out the listbox.css. Done.
Attachment #503197 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #503216 - Flags: review?(dao)
Attachment #503197 - Flags: review?(dao)
Comment on attachment 503216 [details] [diff] [review] Really, really final Thanks!
Attachment #503216 - Flags: review?(dao) → review+
Comment on attachment 503216 [details] [diff] [review] Really, really final css-cleanup, small and safe.
Attachment #503216 - Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 503216 [details] [diff] [review] Really, really final a=beltzner
Attachment #503216 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 4.0b10
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: