On 10/13/2014 10:10 PM, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
On 10/13/2014 07:06 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
I nominally agree with this sentiment, but there are a few caveats:
1. nsITreeView and <xul:tree> exist and are usable in Mozilla code
today. No HTML-based alternative to these are so easily usable.
There are many lazy-rendering infinite tree/table/infinite list
implementations out there:
I found far fewer when searching, but I suppose I'm just bad at coming
up with search terms.
e) already existed and were generally maintained in toolkit/
This is a weird, NIH-ish requirement. Why should Mozilla create and
maintain an HTML tree widget when there are so many open source
implementations that already exist?
I suppose the requirement I really meant was "does not require a massive
toolkit to work properly." Taken to the extreme, we'd end up with a half
a dozen large JS toolkits being installed when we install Firefox--see
the current thread about Firefox installer size pondering. Also, I feel
that a Mozilla-maintained (or at least Mozilla-blessed) toolkit is far
more likely to solve issues that aren't normally in the thoughts of web
developers, e.g., accessibility.
From another point of view: Mozilla, for over a decade, provided a
relatively featureful toolkit for building UIs known as XUL. If the
argument is that we should be using HTML instead of XUL, then wouldn't
it make sense to provide an at-least-as-featureful HTML toolkit to make
migration easy and relatively painless?
--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
