This is the first and most regression-prone part of bug 305746. Incorporate global.css into xul.css as a UA-level sheet, so that it does not need to be explicitly referenced.

Summary of the patch: 1) consolidate the current rules in pinstripe/global.css winstripe/global.css and gnomestripe/global.css into toolkit's xul.css, using ifdefs as necessary 2) make the global.css file empty, so that everyone who continues to import chrome://global/skin/ won't get JS console errors. 3) add an empty file chrome://global/skin/xul.css... for the default (classic) theme, this file is empty, but skinners can use this file to alter XUL at the UA level 4) import chrome://global/content/xul.css and chrome://global/skin/xul.css from ua.css 5) do the same basic maneuver with formatting.css, which really ought to die 6) fix the tabbrowser XBL binding to import formatting.css as an XBL-level sheet

Comment on attachment 194351 [details] [diff] [review] Move global.css -> xul.css >Index: layout/style/ua.css >+@import url(chrome://global/skin/xul.css); >+@import url(chrome://global/content/formatting.css); >+@import url(chrome://global/skin/formatting.css); Any idea what effect (if any) this has on Tp and especially on Tdhtml? I'd hope it's pretty minimal given the namespace checks, but if it's not that would be good to know now. >Index: toolkit/content/commonDialog.css Is there a reason these rules are not in the XUL namespace? >Index: toolkit/content/xul.css >+[wait-cursor] { >+ cursor: wait !important; Ugh. Please, no. Rules like that make performance suck. A lot. Anything we can do to avoid putting them in stylesheets attached to everything we load is good. Further, I see nothing in our code actually setting this attribute. Which makes me question why this is needed at all, much less as part of the XUL language. I'm not really qualified to review most of the rest of this stuff.. I assume you just wanted review from me on the ua.css changes?

> Any idea what effect (if any) this has on Tp and especially on Tdhtml? I'd No. I was going to land this at a quiet time and be prepared to backout if things turn out badly. > Is there a reason these rules are not in the XUL namespace? I was just copy/pasting most of this; I can add a namespace decl. > I'm not really qualified to review most of the rest of this stuff.. I assume > you just wanted review from me on the ua.css changes? Yes, I'm mainly interested in your review of the basic move from user-level to UA-level stylesheets for core XUL.

The basic idea sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Comment on attachment 194351 [details] [diff] [review] Move global.css -> xul.css This is too much, I'm going to go back and do this incrementally.

For those watching, this is being postponed until after ff2 stops using the trunk/branch merging.

Reassigning to nobody since I'm not going to get to this any time soon.