Setting them has had no effect in Firefox since the aviary days (dom.disable_window_status_change has been true). Recently, the Firefox UI dropped support for enabling that pref (bug 842017). These attributes aren't specified in HTML5, so we should just completely remove support for the feature from the DOM (and simplify the relevant nsIWebBrowserChrome2/nsIXULBrowserWindow APIs and client implementations).
I'd rather just make these no-ops. window.status has been mentioned in many docs, so removing would probably lead to some obscure problem in some page.
What kind of compat problems do you foresee? Since it's just a simple property I'm not really sure what kind of issues removing it could cause. Unqualified references to "status"?
Oh, I was wrong about window.status not being specced: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/browsers.html#dom-window-status That seems like a fine compromise.
Created attachment 738895 [details] [diff] [review] Remove the non-standard window.defaultStatus and the propagation of window.status values to the UI.
4 years ago
Created attachment 738897 [details] [diff] [review] Remove the non-standard window.defaultStatus.
4 years ago
I didn't change the guts of .status because there are Gecko-based apps that in fact have UI for it... The decision to drop it should probably have somewhat more public input than this bug.
Comment on attachment 738897 [details] [diff] [review] Remove the non-standard window.defaultStatus. Tiny bit scary. I guess we can try and put back dummy .defaultStatus if there are problems.
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky (:bz) from comment #6) > I didn't change the guts of .status because there are Gecko-based apps that > in fact have UI for it... The decision to drop it should probably have > somewhat more public input than this bug. What apps? We can CC a SeaMonkey representative to a bug, I don't see this needing much more input than that given the state of the feature.
Now I filed bug 863339 :) I'll propose a patch on top of these ones.
SeaMonkey was the obvious one, yes.
I've added this bug to the compatibility doc. Please correct the info if wrong. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Site_Compatibility_for_Firefox_23