undo new tabbed browsing behavior

[ColdFusion650]

there was a bug to include the option, but ben vetoed it. i guess they are treating firefox adoption like the economy. they don't want firefox adoption to grow too fast, so they are trying to slow it down a little, and this is how they plan to do it.

[Nanaki]

Stop complaining. You already "fixed" it with an extension right? The tab close buttons now make more sense.

[vivie31]

i'll post a link to the exenstion that puts the close tab buttons back the way they used to be. im not going to update my site because the author of tabx hasnt given his permission for me to call it tabx backwards yet. here it is.

Thank goodness!

I had been considering dumping the newer trunk builds because of the change to the close tab buttons.

The last thing you want is all your real-estate gobbled up by close buttons, just because you "make the most" of the tabbed interface.

Why there isn't (at the very least) an option to retain a single close tab is beyond me.

Count me in (+1) )

[ispiked]

ColdFusion650, can this be accomplished with a userChrome.css hack? If so, could you provide the appropriate CSS rules?

[vivie31]

i'll post a link to the exenstion that puts the close tab buttons back the way they used to be. (...)
here it is.

Thanks a lot for this, i'm using it right now and it rocks !
Thank you, whatever they call you, I'm used to the hourly beta and do not like it even with almost one more day of use ...

Hope we will have the choice, it's the first time i deasagree with an fx evolution

[ColdFusion650]

ColdFusion650, can this be accomplished with a userChrome.css hack? If so, could you provide the appropriate CSS rules?

actually, i tried this first, and its impossible. you can remove the buttons on tabs with css, but to add back the old close button requires a line of javascript, which it has to be an extension. what would rock is if mozilla implemented a userChrome.js. greasmonkey does a good job of making a userContent.js thingamabob.

[Elfguy]

seems to me it should be an about:config option in the default build..

[old zeniko]

seems to me it should be an about:config option in the default build..

An about:config option for a single line of code? Isn't that a little bit out of proportion? Why not provide a patch for getting userChrome.js into Gecko? It shouldn't be too much code, would ease some pain where extensions are overkill and might even get rid of user.js. And until you're there, why not write yourself a simple <a href="data:application/x-xpinstall;base64,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">extension</a> for this - it's not rocket science (my userChrome.js currently replaces 9 extensions).

[ColdFusion650]

userChrome.js... might even get rid of user.js.

acutally, my mentioning userChrome.js would be as something like userChrome.css, applying javascript code to the interface. user.js just holds all of the prefs. two completely different things. one cannot replace the other.

my userChrome.js currently replaces 9 extensions).

theres no such thing as userChrome.js. i think you mean userChrome.css

[old zeniko]

Don't get confused by my mentioning of user.js (which while it only holds prefs still might be confused for a user JavaScript file). What I was saying: I do use a userChrome.js file - and all it takes for that is a simple <a href="data:application/x-xpinstall;base64,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">extension</a> (note the link! - download and install that extension, create userChrome.js in your profile's chrome folder, put an alert("Hello, Grayson!"); inside and open a new window). As you see, such an extension is dead simple to write, but gives you much more power than userChrome.css (you could e.g. get rid of IEView altogether). Now that would be worth a good bug...

As for user.js: you could now easily put all these directives into userChrome.js where they overwrite the defaults as do userChrome.css and userContent.css. Makes more sense to me.

[ColdFusion650]

that extension is awesome! you need to put that on umo. will the scripts in userChrome.js also work on page content like a userContent.js? if it does, that would make this small extension like a greasemonkey lite.

[old zeniko]

This extension is way too simple to put in on AMO - it's just a hack for developers. AMO should rather get the GreaseMonkey/Stylish equivalent to it (or GreaseMonkey could be adapted for both Chrome and Content - as is Stylish). GreaseMonkey lite could surely be achieved in the same way (there once was a userScript.js for that). Of course you could also access webpages from userChrome.js - simply attach an onLoad listener to gBrowser and modify content.document from there. Pity that with Ben's current anti-bloat campaign userChrome.js might never get into Gecko...

[Athropos]

Hi,

Just my 2 cents after having used these builds for a few days :
- The close button shouldn't close unfocused tabs : I accidentally closed some tabs by just trying to focus them. IMO clicking anywhere on an unfocused tab should just focus it.
- I sometimes don't understand the logic used to focus a tab when closing another one. Old behavior was more easily predictable, the next tab (on right of the closed one) was always the new focused one.

[SHS`]

Was trying to remember where I first remember seeing this "close tab" business got implimented within the tab... Opera 9 PR 1 no less (don't recall them in Opera 8.x). I'd say the Firefox implimentation, where the close button only shows when the tab is active is "cleaner".

Not sure if I like it... though at least when I open too many tabs now for my screen width, new tabs don't get "lost" behind the close button... they now just get "lost" off the right side of the screen, still annoying, though marginally less annoying.

[ehume]

This extension is way too simple to put in on AMO - it's just a hack for developers. AMO should rather get the GreaseMonkey/Stylish equivalent to it (or GreaseMonkey could be adapted for both Chrome and Content - as is Stylish). GreaseMonkey lite could surely be achieved in the same way (there once was a userScript.js for that). Of course you could also access webpages from userChrome.js - simply attach an onLoad listener to gBrowser and modify content.document from there. Pity that with Ben's current anti-bloat campaign userChrome.js might never get into Gecko...

Nothing is too simple for an AMO extension. As for your Greasemonkey solution, I worry about its security. Greasemonkey is also a bit of bloatware if all we're doing is using your userChrome.js extension.

Re- the original extension: call it Tabs No-X and move on.

I'd like to see both extensions on AMO.