MozillaZine

[Needs Testing] Patch for Bug# 243078-Native Theme Rendering

Discussion of bugs in Mozilla Firefox
Jweb_Guru
 
Posts: 74
Joined: September 7th, 2005, 9:50 pm

Post Posted October 13th, 2005, 9:52 pm

Yar. We've been over this numerous times. The short answer to you on the 'two themes' issue is, "No." Longer and more complex answers can be found earlier in this thread. In response to your other question, no. There's no way to really do theme-specific CSS (properly) yet, and that may not even be desirable.

Anyway, no new features are getting into this bug at this point. Regression fixes (hopefully by Friday) and that's it. Future stuff will be done on trunk.

briangeh
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 3rd, 2005, 6:26 am

Post Posted October 13th, 2005, 11:37 pm

i'm not sure whether this is related to this bug or is new but here goes
Image

happens after i view the specific item in the feed

on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051013 Firefox/1.4.1 ID:2005101305

mirp
 
Posts: 148
Joined: September 4th, 2005, 7:38 am

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 12:26 am

briangeh wrote:i'm not sure whether this is related to this bug or is new but here goes
Image

happens after i view the specific item in the feed

on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051013 Firefox/1.4.1 ID:2005101305

Here is a workaround:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 38#1807438

fadsxcv
 
Posts: 33
Joined: April 3rd, 2004, 12:41 am

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 12:51 am

I was wondering if it's possible to make disabled text actually look like disabled text (i.e. gray text with a white drop shadow) like every other windows application or is that something fundamentally not possible with the way mozilla does stuff?

James C
 
Posts: 33
Joined: October 8th, 2005, 8:08 am
Location: Loughborough, UK

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 3:31 am

fadsxcv wrote:or is that something fundamentally not possible with the way mozilla does stuff?

'fraid so. Because Mozilla uses css to control the UI, this can't be done until they implement the text-shadow property.
Firefox 2
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8
WinXP Pro

imforumman
 
Posts: 39
Joined: February 13th, 2003, 8:15 am

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 5:25 am

Hey James/twpol!

Just wanted to let you know, that I've just gotten a first look at Fx1.5b2... you are my hero! The current state of things is so ugly, I can'e even imagine The MoFo considdering a release without your patch. Please continue to do everything to make drivers accept that patch for RC1.

MoFo/drivers: pleeease, do everything to make James' life easier when it comes to aplying this essential patch. You can't really want to make me have to work with such an ugly Fx1.5 (using XP Classic).

Keep up the great work!

BoxerBoi76
 
Posts: 631
Joined: September 15th, 2004, 7:59 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 9:53 am

As I suggested before we needed a consise list of all known issues so as to make Silver's (James Ross) life much easier as well as greatly increasing the chance that this bug would be fully implemented in 1.5. Just as I thought would happen, James backed out the patch entirely on the branch (not sure about trunk). Looks like this isn't going to happen.

<i>" ------- Additional Comment #233 From James Ross 2005-10-14 09:47 PDT [reply] -------

I have backed out all of this bug which has landed on the 1.8 branch. There are
a few reasons for this, including:
- Some regressions that are not easy to fix
- Signal-to-noise ration on relvant bugs being so bad actually finding what
needs fixing is impossible.
- Certain ignorant and annoying comments by people I wont name.

Any comments about this back-out DO NOT BELONG ON THIS BUG. Either flame an
appropriate newsgroup or forum, or e-mail me privately with USEFUL comments.
Drivers wishing to lynch me or otherwise can find me on IRC as usual."</i>

BoxerBoi76

campcove
 
Posts: 171
Joined: February 7th, 2005, 12:04 am

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 10:02 am

For the sake of discussion let's say the changes to fix the bookmark dragging caused too many side-effects. What about the initial patch that was applied to trunk, combined with the less visually perfect fix for the feedback line and bookmark dragging, is there any sign that that combination would cause regressions?

a;skdjfajf;ak

User avatar
 
Posts: 17002
Joined: July 10th, 2004, 8:44 am

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 10:25 am

that would be conceivable I assume, but I feel the 'Wallpaper' should go if this goes, then the 'general' users that have not been following the ins/out/pro's/cons etc of both of these 'fixes' will be none the wiser, as the UI will look like the 1.0.x series that to my knowledge no one complained about anyhow...

As it stands, if the 'wallpaper' is left, there are going to be many looking for the 'hack' put together while back by some good folks to 'fix' to 'bad-fix'...

James C
 
Posts: 33
Joined: October 8th, 2005, 8:08 am
Location: Loughborough, UK

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 10:52 am

Asa has just changed this back to blocking 1.8rc1 so presumably it's going to be checked in again.
Firefox 2
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8
WinXP Pro

ShareBird

User avatar
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: December 8th, 2004, 7:09 am
Location: Berlin | Made in Brasil

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 11:02 am

So... A lot of "movement".

twpol
 
Posts: 70
Joined: August 8th, 2003, 1:24 pm
Location: UK

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 12:24 pm

I'm really sorry about the back-out guys and gals, but I really don't have a choice.

The menu.xml changes, which are required to fix the bookmark menu dragging markers (without writing a lot more code), simply break too much stuff - and as I mentioned in the bug, the level of noise is simply to high. The alternate fix for the marker is not visually acceptable IMHO, but then again the menus without my patch look like ****.

The most interesting thing that came from the menu.xml change was just how badly designed the 'platform' is - absolutely nothing outside of the XBL (and its associated single CSS file) should care what the structure of its anonymous nodes is. There is a long way to go for this platform before it is properly good...

TheOldMan
 
Posts: 815
Joined: March 19th, 2004, 6:22 am
Location: Virginia

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

<b>twpol</b>, Just a quick question. This thing apparently broke my Win95 Trunk build. Any chance for me, or do I just give up on Win95?

twpol
 
Posts: 70
Joined: August 8th, 2003, 1:24 pm
Location: UK

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 12:33 pm

You've not really given me anything to work with... what actually broke, for example? According to the work done in this very thread, the patched stuff does work fine (eventually) on Win95/98.

TheOldMan
 
Posts: 815
Joined: March 19th, 2004, 6:22 am
Location: Virginia

Post Posted October 14th, 2005, 12:37 pm

twpol wrote:You've not really given me anything to work with... what actually broke, for example? According to the work done in this very thread, the patched stuff does work fine (eventually) on Win95/98.

It gives me a General Protection Fault for module GDI.EXE. Trunk build 2005100602 was ok., 2005100701 fails.

Return to Firefox Bugs


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests