Talk:Firefox

New Paragraph?: Youtube HTML5 Support

The MediaSource extensions on Firefox/Linux seem not to be fully supported yet and thus YouTube will only play 720p/30fps videos. This seems to be a Linux specific problem. However a workaround exist. Look here: http://askubuntu.com/questions/661558/in-youtube-there-are-just-360p-and-720p-options-no-240p-480p-and-1080p (especially the last part of the accepted answer). Also although H.264 is fully supported you still need to install "gst-libav". Maybe someone should extend the troubleshooting section by a paragraph with this workaround as missing full YouTube support is probably a very common problem. --Scindix (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This one is related, but it's not the same: Firefox_tweaks#WebM_and_Youtube By the way: what's the difference between Firefox_tweaks and Firefox#Troubleshooting? Maybe they should be merged. --Scindix (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is why Firefox_tweaks#Enable_additional_media_codecs is marked as incomplete. Feel free to expand the table. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Multimedia playback

possible to note (somewhere around Open-with extension) that video playback can be handled via a window manager key binding or shortcut like bindsym $mod+m exec mpv -- $(sselp) for i3wm or similar Ubone (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dictionaries for spell checking

I'm using Firefox stable version (61.0-1) and it no longer creates symbolic links to the system dictionaries.

Now it uses this about:config key: "spellchecker.dictionary_path"

—This unsigned comment is by J1simon (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Screenshot of webpage

Special:Diff/531137

no need to list every possible way

Why not? They're not the same, moz://a might remove the new one, it may not work for someone, etc. ― Ubone (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Mozilla won't remove the main way, there is no reason it shouldn't work, the developer toolbar will be removed in Firefox 62.[1] --Larivact (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

ok that explains the removal but was there really a need for the rewrite? ― Ubone (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous version was alright, I just made some slight improvements, like dropping irrelevant info ("Firefox 57", "Page actions") and elaborating why the Save button is misleading. --Larivact (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't call it an improvement when the reading entropy has increased. ― Ubone (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How so? --Larivact (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It's repetitive and unclear. ― Ubone (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Larivact (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not silently revert my edits without stating a reason. I thought I addressed your concern. --Larivact (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

no not really, but respected your addition and it is there ― Ubone (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

special:diff/536480

The last sentence wrongly implies that the above method doesn't work when you block HTML canvas.

about:config?filter=privacy.resistFingerprinting ― Ubone (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right that does break it, contrary to #1412961 being marked as fixed. --Larivact (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

please abstain from rewording ― Ubone (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just did. --Larivact (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

special:diff/536510 Enabling privacy.resistFingerprinting does not break screen shooting but it does require per site confirmation, you might want to think more ― Ubone (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On my system it breaks; please be a bit more respectful. --Larivact (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

as i already wrote, it breaks on all systems and is unbroken on per site basis, also please don't accuse me of being not respectful in the same thread you gave me a middle finger just 17 minutes prior ― Ubone (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

and to be clear this wasn't an offence but an observation ― Ubone (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I deselected Always remember my decision in the prompt which breaks screen shooting. I didn't intentionally neglect you, I just missed your message. --Larivact (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Dark themes

RE: Special:Diff/552276. How exactly is copying and editing a .desktop file less complex than simply adding a setting to about:config ? And what's so unreliable about changing the content process's theme? -- nl6720 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The .desktop file is optional, it's just a simple variable. I've used css before and found it did not work well sometimes. They are really two different solutions that give similar results but are not the same. We could have both. The css is rightfully in the tweaks page as it may even give more flexibility for those who choose to have it. The main page only hints a standard option. --Ubone (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how a .desktop file is optional. Where else can you set GTK_THEME so that it applies only to a specific application and not globally? My proposed solution wasn't to use the mostly non-working CSS workaround from Firefox/Tweaks#Unreadable input fields with dark GTK+ themes, but to set the content process's theme with widget.content.gtk-theme-override. -- nl6720 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You can do GTK_THEME=Adwaita firefox in your terminal emulator or bind GTK_THEME=Adwaita firefox to a key in your window manager, for example. The .desktop file is one of the options a user has. widget.content.gtk-theme-override is already in the tweaks page and that's ok. --Ubone (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone uses window managers. Anyway, I still think that Firefox#Dark themes should link to Firefox/Tweaks#Unreadable input fields with dark GTK+ themes, otherwise readers might never think of looking there. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

See what happens when there's no link from Firefox#Dark themes to Firefox/Tweaks#Unreadable input fields with dark GTK+ themes. -- nl6720 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the links should be in reverse order. I understand you put the link there because it's a firefox page but my reasoning for this is 1/ the tweaks page has a lot more information so the gtk link could be quicker to give what some may want; and 2/ the link is quite long and kinda makes the sentence lose balance; or it maybe should be removed because it's already in the tweaks page --Ubone (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the link is needed, since most people would not think to look at Firefox/Tweaks. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

no the other one --Ubone (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean "GTK#Themes"? I didn't remove it because I thought that you want to keep that link there. I have no objections to removing it. -- nl6720 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)