On 03/02/2014 01:58 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote: > How much simpler could our style code be if we followed this path? > What do the standards and other browser vendors say about this? > Horrible idea? Great idea? Mixed? > > "This is in preparation for simplifying the Blink style resolution > code by removing the concept of user styles."
The checkin you refer to removed support for the equivalent of our userContent.css -- that is, a bare CSS file dropped into the profile directory, which is taken into account in the cascade. They were watching that file for changes mid-execution, which makes their support code more complicated than ours - we only read userContent.css on startup. It is not clear to me from that whether they removed (or intend to remove) support for *user styles* in general - that is, what the CSS Cascade draft calls "Important user declarations" and "Normal user declarations." [1] The observation that "extensions are a better way" to do this sort of thing suggests not: such extensions would need a hook point into the core, which would be functionally equivalent to "user styles". I would take the Stylish extension's 750,000 installs as a lower bound on the demand for *some* persistent mechanism whereby each user can adjust site styles to their liking, and to me that is enough to conclude that we should keep what we have. zw [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-cascade/#cascading _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
