Asaf Romano (gone) Assignee
	Description • 14 years ago

Bug 610682 comment 67 suggests that we still load xul.css for content documents.

	Asaf Romano (gone) Assignee
	Comment 1 • 14 years ago

The blocking request might be considered spam if it isn't as easy as I imagine...

	Asaf Romano (gone) Assignee
	Comment 2 • 14 years ago

Testcase by gavin: data:text/html,<span class="accesskey">f</span>

	Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]
	Comment 3 • 14 years ago

Don't content documents depend on some of those styles?

	Asaf Romano (gone) Assignee
	Comment 4 • 14 years ago

Not that I know of, not that I know much, maybe the xbl rules? In any case, couldn't we move these to html.css?

	Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]
	Comment 5 • 14 years ago

> Not that I know of

Scrollbars.  And the styles for the videocontrols and such, right?

And yes, we could move those to html.css, maybe.  We just have to be careful about regressions.

And then we'd have to have the machinery to load it on-demand a la MathML or something, right?

Could be worth doing; not sure it's worth trying to do for 2.0.

	Asaf Romano (gone) Assignee
	Comment 6 • 14 years ago

Indeed.

	Asaf Romano (gone) Assignee
	Comment 7 • 14 years ago

The rules for videocontrols are actually here:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/style/html.css#712

	Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]
	Comment 8 • 14 years ago

The rule attaching the binding is.  The binding's anonymous content contains XUL elements that rely on rules and bindings attached via xul.css for proper functioning, last I checked.