X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.

منتدى الدعم

Fx 65 and a css problem

Posted

Earlier today 31st Jan 2019 (UK time) Firefox updated and for the most part it's still okay.

I hate with a passion Tabs on top, so last year I copied and pasted from someone... a bit of css into my ...Profile chrome\userChrome.css file from where it has done the business (Tabs below all the toolbars) intil this 65 update.

Now it is back up-top underneath the Menu bar, and I really don't like or want it there.  :-(

Other snippets of script in the userChrome.css file are still working okay.

I've taken this particular userChrome.css file and put it in two other Fx installs (Two different computers) running 64.0.2 and the tab script works okay so it has to be some coding changes in Fx 65.

Q1) Is this a Moz plot to stop us Users configuring the UI?  ;-)

Q2) Maybe it's just a coding blip and will be put right in the next release?

Q3) Whatever... Anyone have thoughts about how I can fix this annoyance.

Thanks Davez

Nb: It's worth noting, personally I couldn't write a bit of script to save my life...  :-(

Earlier today 31st Jan 2019 (UK time) Firefox updated and for the most part it's still okay. I hate with a passion Tabs on top, so last year I copied and pasted from someone... a bit of css into my ...Profile chrome\userChrome.css file from where it has done the business (Tabs below all the toolbars) intil this 65 update. Now it is back up-top underneath the Menu bar, and I really don't like or want it there. :-( Other snippets of script in the userChrome.css file are still working okay. I've taken this particular userChrome.css file and put it in two other Fx installs (Two different computers) running 64.0.2 and the tab script works okay so it has to be some coding changes in Fx 65. Q1) Is this a Moz plot to stop us Users configuring the UI? ;-) Q2) Maybe it's just a coding blip and will be put right in the next release? Q3) Whatever... Anyone have thoughts about how I can fix this annoyance. Thanks Davez Nb: It's worth noting, personally I couldn't write a bit of script to save my life... :-(

Modified by Davezed

Chosen solution

A slight change was made to the syntax for "tabs".

See this answer: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1248277#answer-1192325

Read this answer in context 1

Additional System Details

Application

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:65.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/65.0

More Information

the-edmeister
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
5395 solutions 40083 answers

Chosen Solution

A slight change was made to the syntax for "tabs".

See this answer: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1248277#answer-1192325

A slight change was made to the syntax for "tabs". See this answer: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1248277#answer-1192325

Question owner

Thanks edmeister, The bit of code at that url did the trick. After I'd made a couple of tweaks to the Tab size, the resulting Firefox 65 display was exactly as it was before the update.

It's a darn shame that the ability of the User to choose top or bottom tabs in Firefox configs was ripped out a while back. Not all, but the majority of folks I know prefer bottom tabs.

Thanks for the support, appreciated. Davez

Thanks edmeister, The bit of code at that url did the trick. After I'd made a couple of tweaks to the Tab size, the resulting Firefox 65 display was exactly as it was before the update. It's a darn shame that the ability of the User to choose top or bottom tabs in Firefox configs was ripped out a while back. Not all, but the majority of folks I know prefer bottom tabs. Thanks for the support, appreciated. Davez

Question owner

Footnote I guess...

6:30 AM. UK time, updated the three other computers in the house to Fx65 updated their userChrome.ccs files and all have Tabs where they (For us here) should be.

Thanks Davez

Footnote I guess... 6:30 AM. UK time, updated the three other computers in the house to Fx65 updated their userChrome.ccs files and all have Tabs where they (For us here) should be. Thanks Davez