data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0e06e/0e06ef69c186851e5b0384aef6651337a6689075" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/149d4/149d4c88ae57ecb751d7d75e2d46670cee7c5125" alt=""
That is not possible. Browser toolbox runs in a completely separate Firefox instance in a separate profile so there’s no way you could display it inside the “main” browser window.
That is not possible. Browser toolbox runs in a completely separate Firefox instance in a separate profile so there’s no way you could display it inside the “main” browser window.
Right, background-color
is not an inherited property (compared to for example color
(color of text) which is). But even if it were, inheritance is not “enforced” so if website css sets a backround-color specifically for that element then the inherited value would be lost anyway.
But the way you now describe it doesn’t seem possible. There is not syntax to apply style rule to “just the innermost element”. I think the closest would be to have everything else have fully transparent background, but the html root element have only partial transparency:
*{
background: transparent !important;
}
html:root{
background: #00000080 !important;
}
However, you will still face a problem; many websites draw graphics or images as a background-image
so if you use the background
shorthand property then those graphics will be effectively removed. On the other hand, if you instead set just background-color
then parts might get opaque again because a website could be drawing even opaque backgrounds as background-image instead of background-color.
I think the answer depends on which elements exactly you want to make transparent. The page is a layered structure. The html root element is behind them all. Then body element is on top of that, the rest of the elements on top of body, etc.
So if you intend to have transparency all the way down, then you need to make sure that all the elements in that stack are transparent. If any single item in a stack has an opaque background then the transparency effect stops at that.
As an example, if you set background:transparent
to just body but not the document root element, then body will indeed be transparent, but it does not matter because the root will still be opaque. Likewise, if root is made transparent, but there is any opaque layer on top of that, then only the parts of the root element that are not covered by that opaque layer will show up as transparent. If you have a glass table and put a sheet of paper on top of it, then you don’t see through the part covered by the paper even though the table itself is transparent.
Yeah, I just figured the safest option would be to only set the actual document root element transparent - in practice I think it’s possibly more likely that the <body>
element has background set by the page - although the page might as well set both. So yes, it depends on the website.
I don’t think I understand exactly what parts you want to make transparent, but this does work:
browser.tabs.allow_transparent_browser
to true
#main-window, #tabbrowser-tabpanels{ background: transparent ; }
html:root{ background-color: transparent ; }
The above would make window background, and the are behind web-content transparent as well as background of html documents - otherwise the background of browser area wouldn’t show up anyway. Toolbars that have their own specified colors would still be colored - which might be opaque or not depending what theme you have selected.
Would be pretty idiotic to not close it, otherwise opening a bookmark would always require a second click to close the popup.
Anyways, you can go to about:config and set browser.bookmarks.openInTabClosesMenu
to false
- afterwards you can hold Ctrl
(or just click the middle mouse button) while clicking a bookmark from such popup and the popup should stay open.
All I’m saying is that it leaving some query parameters unremoved is not indicative of the feature not working. If you want to add more query parameters to the removed list then feel free to open a bug about it.
That feature removes parameters that are known to be used for tracking. It does not remove all query parameters willy-nilly. For example on youtube it should remove si
, feature
and kw
parameters as well as a set of parameters on a list that applies to all websites. However, pp
parameter is not in that to-be-removed list.
As an example v
parameter is for video id on youtube, it would be kinda silly if that was removed, so the feature kinda has to do some site specific action.
I’m not seeing any such issue with Nightly on my Fedora system.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I believe I’ve read that standard backdrop-filter won’t work here and this would instead require OS compositor level mechanism because menupopup and panels are technically separate windows (or window-like widgets) from OS perspective.
You just have the link texts in a text editor one at each line, then select all and drag the selection to tabs toolbar.
But yeah, it does become an issue if you try it with thousands of tabs… It should work, but probably chokes quite a bit.
IIRC the old tab groups feature was eventually removed because telemetry showed that only very few people used it…
My first guess would be that this is caused by the website implementing its own navigation/history behavior using History API. That can easily mess things up, or at least not behave like you might want.
If a website has a compatible PWA manifest the there will be an item labelled “install” in the three-dot menu of Firefox in place of usual “add to homescreen” item.
Edit: There’s a few other requirements as well for the website to be considered installable as PWA, such as it must have a registered service worker so it can work offline. But regardless, if the website provides all the requirements then it can just be installed straight from the menu.
This should be pretty simple to do, although what exactly do you consider a “duplicate”? Does it count as duplicate if the bookmarks have the same name, or same url, or does both name and url need to be equal?
Edit: So the extension could work like this - it’s awaiting review, but the eventual AMO page would be here
How exactly are you trying to run your javascript? Website javascript certainly won’t be allowed to create bookmarks. If you run the function on browser side however, then it should work fine - but then I don’t understand why it’s wrapped into javascript url.
If it’s a javascript: url because you tried to run this as bookmark itself (ie. clicking this special bookmark creates another bookmark folder and a bookmark inside it) then that’s not going to work because that’s pretty much just user provided code running in website context.