<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Replace single toolbar with contextual single" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125040#c13">Comment # 13</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Replace single toolbar with contextual single" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125040">bug 125040</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tietze.heiko@gmail.com" title="Heiko Tietze <tietze.heiko@gmail.com>"> Heiko Tietze</a> <pre>(In reply to Maxim Monastirsky from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=125040#c12">comment #12</a>) > So now you changed your mind? Well, I raise the question :-). >From the user perspective your patch is great and nobody cares if it's based on ui (MUFFIN) or xml (clssic TB). But code-wise we run double-tracked with downsize on support. There will always be some differences, tiny maybe like the separation of sections or the way of overflow handling, that lead to a different look and feel. We can either try to converge or make a clear distinction. An example: <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Floating toolbar feature request" href="show_bug.cgi?id=87040">bug 87040</a> or <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Introduce "mini toolbars" attached to context menus" href="show_bug.cgi?id=119707">bug 119707</a> request for a mini toolbar like graphical context menu. Would that be MUFFIN or classic TB?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>