Open
Bug 195909
Opened 22 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
Re-implement visual selection
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, enhancement)
Core
Layout: Text and Fonts
Tracking
()
NEW
People
(Reporter: lkemmel, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0) Build Identifier: Refer to the bug 76190. I wonder if re-implementation of visual selection should be announced as bug fix for some old build that enables visual selection (say, Mozilla/5.0 Gecko/20020604), or as an enhancement to the current build. Can anyone (maybe Simon?) help me make right decision? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
I think the current build is the place to go, if you want to get any kind of QA and feedback, and not have to deal with merge conflicts.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
Thanks, Simon. Attached patch enables visual selection. Asking for review.
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•22 years ago
|
||
Please ignore the first 2 lines of the attached patch. The genaral idea of the fix is to determine document content displayed between selection start and end points. It's also supposed to fix word (double click) selection. Since the patch is pretty large, I think it would be better if I respond to specific reviewers' questions, rather than provide full description of the changes.
Depends on: 74880
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
smontagu or mkaply, can you please confirm this bug and recommend r/sr?
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 116433 [details] [diff] [review] Enable visual selection Assigning to myself for review and kin for super-review.
Attachment #116433 -
Flags: superreview?(kin)
Attachment #116433 -
Flags: review?(smontagu)
Updated•21 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
Is there any progress with reviewing this patch? Lina Kemmel, does the visual selection handling implemented in this patch comply with Matitiahu Allouche's suggested revisions to Israeli Standard 5194? Prog.
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Prog, it should comply with Mati's recommendations, but I doubt if attachment 116433 [details] [diff] [review] still matches the trunk code.
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Somewhat related to Bug 167288 which deals with Visual vs. Logical caret movement, this bug raises the issue of Visual vs. Logical text selection. Should this bug be platform-specific as well? Personally, I'm rather indifferent to logical caret movement, but I find logical selection to be annoying most of the time - regardless of platform. Alternative opinions? Prog.
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Yes, here's my alternative opinion. First of all, I believe caret motion and selection should, i.e. be either both logical or both visual (what happens when you hold down shift and move the caret?). Regardless of that, I hate visual selection and visual caret movement with a passion. Like I said here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167288#c4 There should be a logical/visual boolean pref, and I think it should control both movement and selection.
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
My opinion: I agree with Prognathous that logical selection is annoying, and I agree with Eyal that selection and movement should work the same way. To summarize, my preference is visual movement + visual selection.
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
The only way to please everyone is to use the platform convention by default and (maybe) to offer hidden prefs for changing this behavior to one's own personal preference. One thing for sure, the current scheme of visual-caret-movement and logical-selection is annoyingly inconsistent. Prog.
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #11) One problem is that on OS X "visual-caret-movement and logical-selection" *is* the platform convention (at least for 10.3. I haven't tried Tiger yet). I'm very much in favor of developing all options (including visual selection, which, as far as I know, is not the convention on any platform), and letting users choose through hidden prefs (or extensions). I don't have strong opinions regarding what the defaults should be.
Comment 13•18 years ago
|
||
See also bug 373319. The current practice on Linux is visual caret movement and logical selection, which is a PITA for people that do not write/read rtl text. The current hidden prefs do not allow me to solve this satisfactorily.
Updated•17 years ago
|
Severity: normal → enhancement
Comment 14•17 years ago
|
||
See also bug 167288. Maybe define two new prefs: logical vs. visual selection, and logical vs. visual arrow movement? (I'd prefer both to be "logical" but I can understand that other people may have other likings.)
Component: Layout: BiDi Hebrew & Arabic → Layout: Text
QA Contact: zach → layout.fonts-and-text
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #116433 -
Flags: superreview?(kinmoz)
Attachment #116433 -
Flags: review?(smontagu)
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: mozilla → nobody
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•