Well for a start you can go back in this newsgroup to when 1.3 was introduced. For me, the comments on how bad 1.3 worked became the incentive to try a different approach.
We have been working and previewing this design for many months. The first blog post about an implementation that you could try was: http://blog.getfirebug.com/?p=124. We had numerous discussions on the design in the Firebug Working Group. (http://groups.google.com/group/firebug-working-group) While that is a private newsgroup for the developers, we always listen here for issues and problems. In general we respond best to concrete use cases. We got a lot of excellent feedback from folks on this newsgroup and it caused design changes which we hope made 1.4 better. jjb On Jun 30, 2:47 pm, Luke Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Whose opinion? Broken how? > > I have to say, I think there would be far less pushback if the > rationale for the new interface, and for discarding the old one, were > more clearly articulated. > > On Jun 30, 11:58 am, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 9:12 am, MorningZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > this is a situation "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" > > > In the opinion of others it was broken so it was fixed. > > > In the process we did allow for extensions to add features like domain > > filters. > > > jjb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
