Why do we want to backport that patch if things are missing and we have a working patch in our tree?
We don't have to necessarily. Because the backport seemed to fix the crash, I was attempting to work with it, but found several missing edges cases. That's why I suggested in #21962 (moved) that we stick with the working patch, with Mark and Kathy's fixup.
In the long run, given that we hope to reduce our maintenance by uplifting our SVG-disabling code, it seems to make sense that we would backport the Mozilla patch and add back the missing parts. Or we could ask Mozilla to work on that.
Why do we want to backport that patch if things are missing and we have a working patch in our tree?
We don't have to necessarily. Because the backport seemed to fix the crash, I was attempting to work with it, but found several missing edges cases. That's why I suggested in #21962 (moved) that we stick with the working patch, with Mark and Kathy's fixup.
In the long run, given that we hope to reduce our maintenance by uplifting our SVG-disabling code, it seems to make sense that we would backport the Mozilla patch and add back the missing parts. Or we could ask Mozilla to work on that.
Asking Mozilla to add the missing pieces seems like a good idea to me as I guess they are more familiar with the way the patch on m-c is written. Adding the remaining things should be faster that way.