Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

> On May 14, 2019, at 2:43 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: > > Which test files are we talking about here? If they are testing UI widgets, > and our long-term goal is to use html and not xhtml for the UI then those > tests should, at some point, be in html. It's worth breaking the tests down into g

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

Sorry, hit send too early. I'll be doing that work in that bug once the dependent bugs are finished. The current patch to load XUL as XHTML is https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/95fc313303f452f6052093bbbebc1cf7beb2d9f1 and overall is getting pretty close to a green try run. It really shouldn't be th

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

This was linked already - but comment #0 and the deps of that bug only mention no longer relying on the XULDocument interface. That's different from "detect and parse .xul files as XHTML" (at least, I think it is). I'd expect a separate dependency for that, but I don't see any. ~ Gijs On 15/0

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1550801 On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:30 AM Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > On 14/05/2019 16:32, Brian Grinstead wrote: > >> 1. Load all XUL documents as XHTML using the prototype cache. This > >> doesn’t require any file renaming, we will just detect a

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

On 14/05/2019 16:32, Brian Grinstead wrote: 1. Load all XUL documents as XHTML using the prototype cache. This doesn’t require any file renaming, we will just detect a .xul file and act like it’s .xhtml. This is tracked in bug 1550801

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

Which test files are we talking about here? If they are testing UI widgets, and our long-term goal is to use html and not xhtml for the UI then those tests should, at some point, be in html. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 1:48 PM Brian Grinstead wrote: > There isn't any particular reason functionally t

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

There isn't any particular reason functionally to go to one vs the other but I think we still generally prefer to get to plain .html if possible. The reasoning is that it's more common and understood by engineers and tooling. It also doesn't have XML-specific additions like CDATA in script tags.

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

On 5/14/19 11:32 AM, Brian Grinstead wrote: 3. For files where there are no (important) XUL elements in the markup, rename .xul->.html. Brian, Could you expand on why this is preferable (when possible) to renaming them to .xhtml? Are there benefits to .html over .xhtml for our purpo

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

It looks like the post lost formatting on the way - most importantly the numbers next to each step and nesting in the list. I made a formatted version of this post at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rEPcu7ei-kK5Dvt7sBgqa_vP37QFIUtVd33JkCK1mvM/edit . Here's a (hopefully) fixed version of the li