Re: Disabling XUL -moz-inline-stack/-moz-stack on the Web?
On 6/13/13 11:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Bug 875060 made me wonder whether we should disable XUL 'display' values on the Web, perhaps starting with -moz-stack and -moz-inline-stack. They do very little that can't be done with absolute positioning. Perhaps we would leave XUL 'display' values enabled for pages where remote XUL has been whitelisted. What do people think? I think it's a great idea, just like I did a week ago when I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=879275 ;) I was more worried about -moz-box, since people are more likely to (ab)use it, but you're right that the compat issues are likely to be less with the stack display types. The point about allowing them if remote XUL was whitelisted is a good one, though; we probably should do that -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Disabling XUL -moz-inline-stack/-moz-stack on the Web?
Sounds like a good candidate for a Metrics web crawl to help predict the bustage level. If the number is low enough, we can skip the whitelist. In general, removing -moz-prefixed syntax is a good thing, especially when standard alternatives have taken hold. --Jet - Original Message - From: Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:56:19 PM Subject: Disabling XUL -moz-inline-stack/-moz-stack on the Web? Bug 875060 made me wonder whether we should disable XUL 'display' values on the Web, perhaps starting with -moz-stack and -moz-inline-stack. They do very little that can't be done with absolute positioning. Perhaps we would leave XUL 'display' values enabled for pages where remote XUL has been whitelisted. What do people think? Rob -- q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Disabling XUL -moz-inline-stack/-moz-stack on the Web?
Jet Villegas wrote: Sounds like a good candidate for a Metrics web crawl to help predict the bustage level. Is this something we have now? Do you have a pointer to more information on this? Relatedly, I see Blink people recently -- well, Tab -- offer to add counters to Blink to determine how often particular Web features are used. Is that something we are also able to do, maybe as part of Telemetry? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Disabling XUL -moz-inline-stack/-moz-stack on the Web?
- Original Message - Relatedly, I see Blink people recently -- well, Tab -- offer to add counters to Blink to determine how often particular Web features are used. Is that something we are also able to do, maybe as part of Telemetry? Yes, it is really easy to do. For instance, bholley added COMPONENTS_INTERFACES_ACCESSED_BY_CONTENT and some other things with COMPONENTS in the name to telemetry, and this guided what parts of Components he removed from access by web pages. Once you've written the code to figure out whether the browser has accessed such a thing, hooking it up to Telemetry is literally just a few lines of code. Andrew ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Disabling XUL -moz-inline-stack/-moz-stack on the Web?
See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=879275 , which bz filed on (possibly, at some point) turning off support for -moz-box on the web. ~Daniel On 06/13/2013 08:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Bug 875060 made me wonder whether we should disable XUL 'display' values on the Web, perhaps starting with -moz-stack and -moz-inline-stack. They do very little that can't be done with absolute positioning. Perhaps we would leave XUL 'display' values enabled for pages where remote XUL has been whitelisted. What do people think? Rob ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
