Removal of -moz-images-in-menu mentions since it has now been removed…

[jonathanKingston]

… and shouldn't be used in future

Bug here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1302157

I'm sorry I was unable to test this as I was unsure how to build the site, feel free to ask me questions etc.

[jeffclayton]

Hi - actually removing it is not the best way - what we need to do is list which versions it works on. we are not targeting only one version of every browser, but identifying how to target specific ones (many people use older browsers, even version 3.5 of firefox shows up in my logs in 2016-- not kidding!) - so if you can figure out which versions of the browser it does or does not target that makes a stronger css hack. The moz specific ones are prime for targeting since they often get cancelled over time, it makes them work very well for that reason.

[jeffclayton]

That is assuming you are referring to css hacks of course. Build items may still need it to target old browsers as well. The notes on sites like bugzilla all refer to only versions posted equal to and after a specific build.

[jonathanKingston]

@jeffclayton I only removed some of the examples that had more than one query per version, they could be split out into separate examples with different support versions though.

The primary example I added the version numbers to up to version 52.

[jeffclayton]

If it seems more like duplicated code samples that is fine, just I wouldn't remove too many for sure, I have run into many cases where some things work then get removed, but then the one that worked was for version 1-5, then a different one gets removed in version 6 and another in version 8 (etc...) so then they all end up needed. Some even come back -- not usually the 'moz' or 'webkit' ones, but things like @supports (will-change...) was added, then removed for a while then added back so it helped target multiple versions on the edge of the browser numbers. I hope that all made sense...

[jonathanKingston]

Not sure, it probably needs separating out into a new supports table then. Either way I can't see it coming back any time soon. It was removed as the feature is deprecated in Gtk.

[jeffclayton]

actually separating it out really would be a great idea, i use it in specific ones - it never worked on linux for example so it (up until now apparently) was a great way to target linux vs non-linux browsers.

[jeffclayton]

Here are my old notes on it over time: @media screen and (-moz-images-in-menus:0) { .selector { property:value; } } Firefox 3.5+[up to your recent testing], Not TOR, Not Linux

[jonathanKingston]

I don't remember there being any Tor specific code disabling it from what I saw, either way:

 @media (-moz-images-in-menus:1)

Should work in GTK when images is enabled however this is disabled in Ubuntu by default from my testing so not the best way to target browsers unless using this (untested):

 @media (-moz-images-in-menus:0), (-moz-images-in-menus:1) {

[jeffclayton]

It isn't tor specific, I have noticed over a few years that the version of firefox that tor uses does not include that css code. tor is a little more bare-bones so trust me on it, it does not work on versions of tor. they did not add mac includes either for example. if you go to my test site you will find the next ones:

[jeffclayton]

@supports (-moz-osx-font-smoothing:auto) { .selector { property:value; } @media (-moz-images-in-menus:0) { .selector { property:value; } } }
Special Purpose (Mac) - The Second Selector blocks the First Selector [the special purpose I mention in this one is the tor browser]

[jeffclayton]

the other one as well:
@supports (-moz-appearance:none) and (background-attachment:local) and (not (-moz-osx-font-smoothing:auto)) { @media not screen and (-moz-os-version) { .selector { property:value; } @media (-moz-images-in-menus:0) { .selector { property:value; } } } }
Special Purpose (Win/Lin) - The Second Selector blocks the First Selector

[jeffclayton]

The test site I have is http://browserstrangeness.bitbucket.org/css_hacks.html -- I never posted the TOR one for many reasons, partially because I wondered if it would ever cover that one. It was just never added into the code.

[jeffclayton]

This makes sense from your posting: @media (-moz-images-in-menus:0), (-moz-images-in-menus:1)

works in ubuntu because the :0 is not supported but the :1 is and the comma simply means OR for others who might be reading this thread.

[jeffclayton]

I have been using it to target tor for testing since 2013 -- so then it still is not supported in tor or linux but apparently now not windows or mac either. Javascript may still have methods but less now due to this change you noticed.

[jonathanKingston]

Confirm Tor doesn't support it, still can't quickly see where that is preffed away in their code but either way that doesn't matter. Perhaps they disable all moz prefixes within the parser somewhere, either way all the code I removed is intact within their codebase.

[jeffclayton]

Nah I think they just didn't add it. Other ones do exist, just not that one. I wonder if they are using the same base code used in the linux version since they match that way. If they are, they may not even be aware it was not included. I would think they do know but just didn't care.

[jonathanKingston]

It's in their source base for certain; they will be removing it due to it's fingerprinting issues however I can't see where (not that it really matters, as you say it's not supported).

I'll fix up the commit tonight anyhow.

[jeffclayton]

Bizarre, no idea why it wouldn't work if it is in there - maybe a bug? Strange. Anyway you can see other ones on my test page live in TOR (and since i break them down by version you can see which version of Firefox they used for the build.) Android versions use the chrome [linux of course] base instead btw. not the Firefox one.

[jeffclayton]

Perhaps it is the same thing with the linux version-- images in menus exists, but not working with :0 -- but :1 does -- meaning that it looks like it may well be exactly that. (well, or at least... until the next versions of firefox kill it of course...)