customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

User avatar
back2themoon
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2127
Joined: 2012-08-19, 20:32

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by back2themoon » 2022-10-22, 01:25

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-21, 17:01
Can it be invoked on a per site basis, like a UA override string can be, or is it a global parameter which when toggled, simultaneously has varying effects on various sites?
No. It's a global parameter. What's more, I think I remember reading here that it's best to restart Pale Moon after toggling it, to avoid unforeseeable effects.

User avatar
andyprough
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 416
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-10-22, 02:56

back2themoon wrote:
2022-10-22, 01:25
No. It's a global parameter. What's more, I think I remember reading here that it's best to restart Pale Moon after toggling it, to avoid unforeseeable effects.
I could easily be wrong but I've never read that advice about restarting Pale Moon or seen any ill effects of toggling webcomponents. And it's rare that I need to toggle it - as I sit here right now I can't recall the couple of sites I've used it with.

User avatar
back2themoon
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2127
Joined: 2012-08-19, 20:32

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by back2themoon » 2022-10-23, 13:15

This post by Moonchild is probably what I remember:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=28163&p=226884#p226884

Restart is not explicitly mentioned, but "flipping it twice or more" clearly implies it's not safe toggling it within the same session. There are numerous other posts about it being experimental and only meant to be used in very specific cases.

dapgo
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 131
Joined: 2016-10-11, 11:36

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by dapgo » 2022-11-29, 17:16

athenian200 wrote:
2022-10-21, 11:16
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 18:25
Whose cage should a person be rattling about this ?
It's technically a platform issue, and I am one of the people that's been doing work on it. If this were something we could "just support" with a few weeks of focused effort, I can assure you we would have already done so ages ago.

I mean, it's a huge task that is not happening very fast, and we've known it was going to be a problem for a while now. The fact is, it's too big a job for us to do in a reasonable timeframe with our skills alone, and we aren't able to rebase on newer Mozilla code. So it's very likely that this will be an increasingly frustrating experience for some time to come. I mean, let me put it this way... you might as well get used to using something else if you're in a hurry and need things to "just work." We're in a position where we can't offer that level of service anymore.

https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reck ... scope.html

Consider this article while trying to understand this from our perspective. Anyway, the only thing that could really help us do it faster is to have more people helping us out who understand how to do the work required, but we've had trouble attracting people to contribute to UXP.
It is nice to listen that works are going on (slow but still).
As i said time ago, maybe the solution is to raise money through a crowfunding (it is also a loud speaker out of this reduced community) and try to attract developers that can do it but they wouldn't do for free on their spare time.

Post Reply