Phoenix 0.5 Milestone versus 28 Dec 2002 Nightly

[maubp]

As of the 29 Dec 2002 nightly build, installing Themes & Extensions broke on Windows. This has not yet been fixed:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187126

See this thread for discussion of the bug, and links to mirrors for 2002-12-28 (try page 4). Thanks People!

http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewt ... 4&start=45

As I use windows, and several extensions, I am considering updating from Phoenix 0.5 to 2002-12-28 Nightly.

Whats different?

[Tutor]

Whats different?

Different bugs.

OK, to be more constructive - you could rename your current application and profile folders and give the 12-28 a try. If the newer version bugs you more, just replace the folders.

[alanjstr]

Remember, it's not just Phoenix checkins, it's Mozilla checkins too. From 12/07 to 12/28, that's a lot of checkins (about 28000 lines changed if I ran the query right).

One of them was changing the default theme from Orbit to Qute.

If you really really want to know, go to http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsqueryform. ... nderboxAll and create q query.

For checkins that have occurred within the past week that are bug related.
http://www.mozillanews.org/bonsai.php3
http://backprop.net/mozilla/bonsaibugs/

[daihard]

Whats different?

OK, to be more constructive - you could rename your current application and profile folders and give the 12-28 a try. If the newer version bugs you more, just replace the folders.

That's what I do whenever I try a new nightly. If I run into a major issue, I simply switch back to the old build.

[maubp]

Well I downloaded and installed it. So far the only thing I have noticed is the theme change.

I quite like the icons and the rounded frames. Its the tab bar I didn't like - the current tab didn't stand out.

I just grabbed the yellow Orbit theme instead. Its not quite the same as the built in one was, but I can hardly tell the different now.

So far I haven't noticed anything else different... I'm not worried about going back, I've had plenty of experience at that now from messing about with extensions.

[alanjstr]

Its the tab bar I didn't like - the current tab didn't stand out.

There's a tip on Phoenix Help on how to make the text on the current tab bold. You can use the same logic to make it a different color, too.

[daihard]

There's a tip on Phoenix Help on how to make the text on the current tab bold. You can use the same logic to make it a different color, too.

I've been able to increase the font size of the active tab the following way:

Code: Select all

.tabbrowser-strip tab:not([selected="false"]) .tab-text {
  font-size: 14pt !important;
  font-weight: bold !important;
}

For some reason, I have to use "not...false" in order to specify the active tab. If the first line was this:

Code: Select all

.tabbrowser-strip tab:[selected="true"] .tab-text {

Then it doesn't work. Shall spend some time tonight to figure it out...

[alanjstr]

http://texturizer.net/phoenix/tips.html#app_tab

[daihard]

http://texturizer.net/phoenix/tips.html#app_tab

Thanks Alan. I guess my question is, why not([selected="false"]) works and [selected="true"] doesn't, when they seem logically identical?

[Chris Cook]

http://texturizer.net/phoenix/tips.html#app_tab

Thanks Alan. I guess my question is, why not([selected="false"]) works and [selected="true"] doesn't, when they seem logically identical?

While these 2 selectors ARE logically equivalent, they do not necessarily select identical nodes. The reason is this:

• tab[selected="true"] matches ONLY <tab selected="true"> (i.e. the tab tag MUST have a "selected" attribute equal to "true" to match)
• tab:not([selected="false"]) matches <tab selected="true"> AND <tab> (i.e. the tab tag does not require the "selected" attribute to match)

The reason this distinction is important is that in the XUL code boolean tag attributes are often _removed_ instead of having their value changed.

Hope that makes sense.

[daihard]

While these 2 selectors ARE logically equivalent, they do not necessarily select identical nodes. The reason is this:

• tab[selected="true"] matches ONLY <tab selected="true"> (i.e. the tab tag MUST have a "selected" attribute equal to "true" to match)
• tab:not([selected="false"]) matches <tab selected="true"> AND <tab> (i.e. the tab tag does not require the "selected" attribute to match)

The reason this distinction is important is that in the XUL code boolean tag attributes are often _removed_ instead of having their value changed.

Hope that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense. Thanks much for your detailed explanation. If a tab doesn't have a "selected" tag associated with it, then tab[selected="true"] returns FALSE whereas tab:not([selected="false"]) returns TRUE, am I correct? It's a very interesting example of how two negatives don't always make a positive.

[ehume]

While these 2 selectors ARE logically equivalent, they do not necessarily select identical nodes. The reason is this:

• tab[selected="true"] matches ONLY <tab selected="true"> (i.e. the tab tag MUST have a "selected" attribute equal to "true" to match)
• tab:not([selected="false"]) matches <tab selected="true"> AND <tab> (i.e. the tab tag does not require the "selected" attribute to match)

The reason this distinction is important is that in the XUL code boolean tag attributes are often _removed_ instead of having their value changed.

Hope that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense. Thanks much for your detailed explanation. If a tab doesn't have a "selected" tag associated with it, then tab[selected="true"] returns FALSE whereas tab:not([selected="false"]) returns TRUE, am I correct? It's a very interesting example of how two negatives don't always make a positive.

More basically, it indicates that xul logic is not binary, but at least trinary: 'true', 'false', and 'no attribute'. Are there other states as well?

[alanjstr]

Yeah, there's tab[busy]

[priior]

to be more precise, tab[busy] means busy="busy" tho.. not selected="busy"

(i think)

[daihard]

to be more precise, tab[busy] means busy="busy" tho.. not selected="busy"

(i think)

Jeez, I have so much to learn!