Okay, makes sense. However... wouldn't it be more logical for Firebug to read the source of the document then, instead of what Firefox is showing it? (I can understand that this may be somewhat more complex).
On Jun 6, 12:26 pm, alfonsoml <[email protected]> wrote: > It's Firefox the one that reports your content that way. > For example load one of your pages (without Firebug enabled) and run > this in the location bar: > javascript:alert(document.body.innerHTML) > > You'll see that all that "clutter" is already there, so Firebug will > have a hard time telling apart what's due to Firefox and what's your > original code. > > On 6 jun, 18:55, Falconer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > Before continuing, I would like to say thanks to the creators of > > FireBug. It's a fantastic tool and I do not ever want to be without it > > anymore. > > > There is one thing that is bugging me more and more though, and that > > is the crappy code that shows up in firebug that is not part of my > > original code. I'm talking about the "moz" stuff and numerous > > 'transparent' insertions whenever I set a background in CSS and a ton > > of other things. > > > It's just clutter and does nothing to help me. It would be great if > > this could be left out and Firebug just takes the code as if you are > > doing a view-source. If (I can't see why) this is useful to some > > people, I suggest adding a tickbox somewhere that lets the user chose. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
