On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:09:56PM +1030, David Kettler wrote: > > What do you think about the XBL idea? > > I like it a lot. I read your "might be favourable" comment as implying > that this was merely sweeping the problem under the rug. But I agree > with your reframing of the problem below, where a proper abstraction > manages the issue. It probably won't be possible to entirely forget > the complexity in future development, but this should contain it. > > > All approaches have complexity, but > > it's a matter of where that complexity is that makes the difference; > > whether it is local complexity to a single module (hints.js), leaky > > complexity that infects other modules (minibuffer.js), or complexity that > > can be wrapped up in a tidy abstraction and forgotten. I think we might > > be able to use XBL to wrap up the entire stack&strut method in a > > self-contained file, introducing a new XUL element <minibuffer-input/> to > > be used in place of the textbox. This element would handle the > > stack&strut mechanism internally and transparently. It would probably > > just need to provide a method to switch it between normal mode and > > stack&strut mode. > > Sounds good. How do you feel about the name "annotated-textbox" for the > XBL binding; with minibuffer-input as the element that binds to it (if > I've got my terms straight)?
Sounds fine. -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list Conkeror@mozdev.org https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
