As others have said, XUL is going away. It is not going away tomorrow.
We should be careful about if and how we invest here, so usecases are important.
On 15/08/2015 20:48, Philip Chee wrote:
Use case 1: chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?a=b&c=d This could be written as chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?c=d&a=b So I would need to overlay both chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?a=b&c=d chrome://foo/content/bar.xul?c=d&a=b
Which foo/bar are we talking about? I can't think of anything Firefox ships that uses querystrings for chrome:// URLs. This could be a problem for add-ons, but so far that is a theory, and you haven't provided a concrete example.
Use case 2: about:config supports the following syntax: about:config?filter=<string> Where <string> could potentially be any valid UTF-8 string.
This functionality isn't exposed in any way. If I had a choice, I would sooner remove that functionality which, IMO, has very little if any usecases (websites can't link to about:config anyway, and nothing in chrome links to it, so this is just the difference of typing this in the address bar vs. typing it in the filter box).
These don't seem like particularly strong usecases for changing anything here.
~ Gijs _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
