On 9/16/13 10:36 PM, Adam Kowalczyk wrote:
Alright then, *would* be useful if supported more widely, is what I
should have said.
My point is the counterfactual has been given a chance and failed
If there's no hope for getting traction with other vendors, then it
pretty much settles it. Bu
On 2013-09-17 02:52, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/16/13 8:06 PM, Adam Kowalczyk wrote:
and it displays content from many third-party sources on a
single page
You probably want iframes for that
I'm using a resource:// URI loaded in a browser with type="content", so
the content is unprivileg
On 9/16/13 8:06 PM, Adam Kowalczyk wrote:
and it displays content from many third-party sources on a
single page
You probably want iframes for that
The arguments so far have focused on code simplicity, lack of support in
other browsers, and Mozilla itself not using the feature.
Also per
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Adam Kowalczyk wrote:
> For what it's worth, I find xml:base very useful in my extension. It is a
> feed reader and it displays content from many third-party sources on a
> single page, so there's a need for multiple base URIs in order to resolve
> relative URIs co
On 2013-08-09 15:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be grea
On 2013-08-09 15:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be grea
On 2013-08-09 15:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be grea
On 2013-08-09 15:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be grea
On 2013-08-09 15:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be grea
On 2013-08-09 15:32, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be grea
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> There is a proposal in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372
> to remove xml:base support.
>
> Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for xbl
> stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
>
> If we
There is a proposal in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903372 to remove xml:base
support.
Do we actually use this for anything? I thought we used to set it for
xbl stuff, but I don't see obvious code doing that.
If we can, it would be great to rip this out: it would significant
12 matches
Mail list logo
