I think it's pretty easy to do in XBL. You probably couldn't get total
support, but maybe enough for the typical use cases.
dave
Chris Waterson wrote:
> It was smart for you to ask this question while ekrock is on
> sabbatical. I'll summarize (probably badly) his objections. They've
> appeared many times on this newsgroup, I think.
>
> 1. Not that many ``important'' sites use layers.
>
> 2. Implementing layers means implementing all the bizarre 4.x
> layer behavior. (``Bug compatibility'')
>
> 3. It might be possible to simulate layers using a JS (+XBL?)
> ``includes'' that site authors could reference as a
> transition strategy. (Or that get automatically pulled in
> when Moz runs in some ``compatibility mode''.)
>
> If you buy these arguments, then implementing layers as part of core
> layout is a waste of time. So the question becomes, is it possible to
> do (3), and if so, how much work is *that*. To which I answer, ``ask
> hyatt and ben''.
>
> chris
>
> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>
>> So, what would it take to support layers? It's hurting us pretty
>> badly and I think that it would be worth it to try to support it,
>> even though it would be a lot of work.
>>
>> What would it take?
>>
>> --Chris
>
>
>
