![]() Though for the Firebug Working Group it wouldn't be a problem, if > Because of this it would be logical to reuse the existing prefs mentioned > having the browser cache disabled expect the whole cache to be disabled, not > of bug 862222 were enough, I wouldn't have created this issue. > may always want to get the latest version of a website. > The user case for Firebug users is surely for testing purposes. They aren't, assuming "persisted" means they persist from one browser session to the next. > (In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #3) (In reply to Sebastian Zartner from comment #4) Though for the Firebug Working Group it wouldn't be a problem, if there were an extra pref only controlling the fonts cache. :-) People having the browser cache disabled expect the whole cache to be disabled, not just parts of it.īecause of this it would be logical to reuse the existing prefs mentioned above. If the functionality of bug 862222 were enough, I wouldn't have created this issue. Other users may always want to get the latest version of a website. The user case for Firebug users is surely for testing purposes. > However, existence of this bug itself show our preferences already are ![]() > In my personal opinion, there should be a pref for everything, if possible. ![]() > the force-reload functionality from bug 862222 sufficient?) > here for wanting to disable it? If it's purely for testing purposes, isn't > instantiations of webfonts can be cached and shared? (What's the use-case > maybe there should be a separate pref that controls whether the platform > I don't think it should unless the web fonts are persisted. > But maybe it should also respect the setting? ![]() (In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #3) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |