Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
On 18 Dec 2001 06:05:22 GMT, DeMoN LaG n@a wrote: :I would blame Netscape if the code was checked in by a netscape employee :with no r/sr/a, or if the code was checked in by a netscape employee and :had r/sr/a all with @netscape.com email addresses. That would scream to :me that the change were rushed in by Netscape. The major thing people :are bitching about in this thread involving /favicon.ico does not seem :to me that it's a netscape rushed in change, merely a I want this :feature that was approved for checkin. Poor judgement? Maybe. Poor :implementation? IMHO, yes. Secret Netscape conspiracy? No favicon is obnoxious to servers, but it's got such a huge eyecandy value that Netscape marketing would be idiots to pass it up. Unfortunately. -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume there exists a spherical gothband of uniform density which represents the Platonic ideal of 'goth'. I won't have their records in the house. Hateful racket. (HiRez)
JTK vs Common Sense
Round One... ... Fight! What do they gain out of *any* of Mozilla? It's a complete and utter failure after, what, five *years* of work, the laughingstock of the computing world, and yet they still drag the dead carcass along. And then to top it off they slap a commie star on it apparently as some sort of sick joke. What do you gain out posting to Netscape.Public.Mozilla? I don't know what they gain out of it. I know what I gain out of it - a standards-compliant, fast, useable web-browser and email client. I must ask - what computer hardware and software are you using? Under [insert unix clone here], or Mac OS 9, or Windows 2000, I know that Mozilla works, and works well. I primarily use G4 450 PPC, and under OS 9 or X, it works. Fast. In all seriousness, somebody answer me this: other than crash-wise, which I'll grant you is much improved, is today's Mozilla *any* different than it was at Netscape 6.0-time? Speed. N6 took ten, twenty seconds to even start. Mozilla 0.9.6 takes two. Maybe three. Standards compliance improved, blah, blah. Interface is a little better. A little. I notice no significant difference. Then open your eyes. The mail composer is still an unusable joke, without even *NOTEPAD* quality editing features (PLEASE somebody challenge me on that one). No. I don't even understand what you're saying there. Make a coherent statement if you want me to refute it. The cache does nothing more than serve up week-old news. No-one else has seen this problem (or have they?). It could be your network cache, it which case it's beyond mozilla.org's power to fix your problem. The XUL is just as slow. Computers only get faster. Making an application which only runs on today's high-end machines makes sense to me, because today's high-end machines are next year's quaint curiousities. And the XUL is much, much faster than in N6. The 1.0 performance release criteria that Hixie, Jesus X, myself, and even Gervase Markham worked on (summary: 1.0 must be at least HALF AS SLOW as either IE OR Netscape, whichever is SLOWER) have been thrown in the shitter Um. For me, Mozilla is already satisfying that for startup (I think), and everything else except new page open. The... ah why the hell do I bother, nobody here cares enough about this project to put it to sleep, let alone make it good. Yet some people here do care about this project enough to download test binaries daily, file bugs, checkin code every day, post to a newsgroup on the subject of, of all things, a web browser you have an untenable position, there. The fact that you posted nobody cares on a newsgroup suggests you think some-one will respond, and why would someone respond, if they didn't care? Makes me ill. What a shame that would be. In closing - if you don't like the way Mozilla works on your hardware configuraion, either upgrade, or use Opera, because Mozilla is into functionality, flexibitly, portabilty and all those other things that need a high end machine (not that my power mac G4 cube is a high end machine anymore. When I bought it, last year, it was. Today, it's a doorstop. But even so, it can run Mozilla fast). If you don't like functionality, flexibitly, or portabilty, then find another browser. Bye.
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with not caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as numerous requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our marketing department notified us of the strong demand for such a feature. Management ensured that it was properly planned, and approved spending time and money on it. Engineering designed and implemented it. QA wrote test plans for it, and is testing it. One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors. Hopefully, that will lead to more of them choosing our browser, which means more visitors to our web properties, and more advertising and other revenue for Netscape and AOL. AOL also benefits from having more people using any mozilla-based browser, since that gives web authors more reason not to knuckle under and let Microsoft own the web. Obviously, we all benefit from that. This is why we need to build mozilla for the masses. Peter Jonathan Wilson wrote: From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things not really. Accually, its probobly more like this: The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not asked to by the user with no way to turn it off is not better) But on the other hand, we have the managers and marketing department plus the people at AOLTW that seem not to care about the product known as mozilla and also as netscape 6. What I dont understand is just what AOLTW or netscape corp accually gains out of this favicon.ico thing.
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
Jason Kersey wrote: They integrate those widgets in the OS, so they become native. Didn't you heard something about DoJ vs MS? IE's widgets are still different than the rest of the OS's. So please, can you explain me which widgets are you talking about? I don't see anything in IE5 that can't be used in any other app, and surely they have developed the widgets following the rest of the OS look feel. The point is that nobody should argue that something is done in Mozilla just to please IE users. They will find too many differences just to care about a simple shortcut when there are a lot of other shortcuts that haven't been copied. Wrong. The point is that this is a convienient way for IE users to get a feel for our product. Just because IE does it doesn't make it bad. Well, then wake up and add F3 right now. I use this shorcut in every app except in Mozilla where some genius thought that it would be much funnier to map it to Ctrl+G. Find Next = Ctrl+G, every windows user will be pleased to have to use that shorcut instead of the standard one. Then go ahead and search for all the request to add Alt+D, and Shift+click also as in IE. If you only add backspace but leave away these two shortcuts you will find that 99% of IE users find Mozilla very hard to use.
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Peter Trudelle wrote: Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with not caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as numerous requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our marketing department notified us of the strong demand for such a feature. Management ensured that it was properly planned, and approved spending time and money on it. Engineering designed and implemented it. QA wrote test plans for it, and is testing it. One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors. Hopefully, that will lead to more of them choosing our browser, which means more visitors to our web properties, and more advertising and other revenue for Netscape and AOL. AOL also benefits from having more people using any mozilla-based browser, since that gives web authors more reason not to knuckle under and let Microsoft own the web. Obviously, we all benefit from that. This is why we need to build mozilla for the masses. Peter Jonathan Wilson wrote: From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things not really. Accually, its probobly more like this: The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not asked to by the user with no way to turn it off is not better) But on the other hand, we have the managers and marketing department plus the people at AOLTW that seem not to care about the product known as mozilla and also as netscape 6. What I dont understand is just what AOLTW or netscape corp accually gains out of this favicon.ico thing. I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a good thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit does it have (other than displaying a pretty little icon in the URL bar?)
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
If you think the implementation is poor, could you file concrete bugs regarding the concerns that you have or perhaps state them here? There are AFAIK only a handful of current remaining issues with the implementation. Also, if you want the feature to have no serious issues before it's enabled at all, I'm fine with that. We could turn it off in 0.9.7. I don't really care. I've been turning it on in between milestones so that we can shake it out and get the known issues filed as bugs, but I'm certainly willing to hold favicon to very strict standards before it is enabled in a real release (like Mozilla 1.0). Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) DeMoN LaG wrote: Poor implementation? IMHO, yes. Secret Netscape conspiracy? No
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
On 18/12/2001 at 00:32 Peter Trudelle wrote: Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with not caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as numerous requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our marketing department notified us of the strong demand for such a feature. Management ensured that it was properly planned, and approved spending time and money on it. Engineering designed and implemented it. QA wrote test plans for it, and is testing it. One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors. Hopefully, that will lead to more of them choosing our browser, which means more visitors to our web properties, and more advertising and other revenue for Netscape and AOL. That tends to imply that it was an AOL product requirement and not necessarily a mozilla.org one. I can't see any downside to AOL implementing their own feature set but this kind of feature seems a little odd to force on what is intended to be a standards compliant piece of software. Its also just a little disengenuous to say that AOL features are simply the result of customer requests, we both know that most features are marketing driven and that a major marketing reason to have this kind of feature is to highlight Netscape portal bookmarks. That's not to say that there is anything conspiritorial in AOL pushing this feature into the mainstream development rather than keeping it at a product/distributor level but you can hardly blame people for citing it as another example of AOL having what AOL wants and damning all the rest. The only speed advantage gained in having a little icon depends on remembering what the little icon means, which requires marketing dollars spent on making that a recognisable icon. The number of these is actually going to be relatively small, given the antipathy that mozilla.org has to hosting advertising within the chrome, why should (even given any of the reasonable technical objections being answered), mozilla advertise AOL, Netscape, Amazon and so on? Oh yes, advertising is about choice isn't it. Well let the choice be whether someone installs Netscape, not whether they have a mozilla based browser or not. The user has the option of titling any and all bookmarks to make them understandable, an icon unless it will always perform a useful task, just takes up space. Personally, I'd remove the curious existing bookmark icon anyway, it serves no real purpose. Sometimes Marketing is just wrong and its part of Engineering's job to point that out. That may have happened in this instance and you can't go to the barricades over everything and if I were part of a commercial build (not that I'm part of any build anymore :-)), I'd probably agree that it was worthwhile to implement it and I'd also try and get it enabled as a default in the mozilla.org distribution. But as I'm not, I think its a misuse of AOL's position to force this feature onto mozilla.org and if the feature remains it seems reasonable that people raise bugs on it as being undesirable. AOL also benefits from having more people using any mozilla-based browser, since that gives web authors more reason not to knuckle under and let Microsoft own the web. Obviously, we all benefit from that. This is why we need to build mozilla for the masses. I've never much held to the view that mozilla is anything to do with browser wars as such and this is certainly not a feature that's likely to win any awards or kudos. I don't think anyone much buys that AOL is for the little guy anymore. It was barely supportable when it was Netscape saying it. Simon Peter Jonathan Wilson wrote: From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things not really. Accually, its probobly more like this: The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not asked to by the user with no way to turn it off is not better) But on the other hand, we have the managers and marketing department plus the people at AOLTW that seem not to care about the product known as mozilla and also as netscape 6. What I dont understand is just what AOLTW or netscape corp accually gains out of this favicon.ico thing.
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
Daniel Veditz wrote: Jesse Ruderman wrote: Netscape recently checked in [...] C'mon, you know how things work here. Netscape did no such thing, it was coders running amok because they thought it was neat and they could. I actually meant that in a good way. Most of the cool things in the product are the result of individual coders--Netscape employed or not--kicking some butt. If you want to know what Netscape is doing to the product look at manager-approved keyword+ bugs. -Dan Veditz
build own sidebars ?
hi mozillas, where can i find information on how to build my own sidebar ? regards karsten
build own sidebars ?
hi mozillas, where can i find information on how to build my own sidebar ? regards karsten
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Jonathan Wilson wrote: I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a good thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit does it have (other than displaying a pretty little icon in the URL bar?) It is also displayed in the title of the tab, once you have about fifteen tabs, the tabs are small enough that you can only see the first two or three letters of the title. Once you have on the order of 24 tabs you can no longer see any of the title and just see the site icon. Trust me, the site icon makes it much easier to move between the various sites I have open...
Skin installation
I have been given some mozilla themes as a .jar file, but cant seem to find a way to install them. Anyone know how without having to install them from the site? I've already got them, just a matter of knowing where to put them. By the way, I'm running Red Hat Linux 7.1. Thanks
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Firts of all, JTK, Who are you? When I search a number of mozilla groups for your initials (With the stable and handy mail/news client Mozilal, with a verry handy search option), it pops up a large list of criticising replies and annouying text. When I go to http://www.mozilla.org/community.html it states at the ground rules: No personal attacks. If you feel the need to flame someone, please do it in private email. Do not feel compelled to defend your honor in public. This presents me with a problem. If I, or any other who is interrested in the project and likes to help or give NORMAL input, want to tell you to stop annouying us we can't adres you other then use the name JTK and [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Are you affraid to show who you are? second: You are nagging a lot about the cach management of the browser. I'm using Mozilla for a while now (for obvious reasons) and have never encountered the problem you describe so have you even considered the possebility that You are doing something wrong? That all I wanted to say. I will no longer reply to threads bearing JTK's initials. Sorry for off-topicness (also in the Ground Rules) -- Vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Arthur Costerus Private E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
I wrote: Since most apps see AltGr as Ctrl+Alt this means that Mozilla will quietly ignore all AltGr keystrokes, see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50255 thus temporarily rendering my patch useless :-(
Browser problem
I just installed 9.6, previously had Netscape 6.2. Running ZoneAlarm, Norton AV. OS- Win Me When starting the browser, all I get is the msgbox Error launching browser window.no XBL binding for browser Can you help or point me to the proper NG? Thanks. John
Re: Mozilla compatible - What do you think can I do?
DeMoN LaG wrote: Morten Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 17 Dec 2001: Albert wrote: The only thing preventing my migration is an error message in RH 7.2 that says Warning! FAT32 support is still ALPHA! (nuisance only) and the fact that no one supports USB wireless network cards =( Huh? last time I had a FAT32 partition, I used it with less trouble in linux than from windows... NTFS on the other hand... is another story Why would anyone put a FAT32 partition on a Linux box? If you migrated entirely over to linux, you wouldn't have a FAT32 partition to have alpha support on. The USB wireless cards yes, that's an issue, but the file system is no problem at all As someone who dual-boots (although I haven't booted into Windows for quite some time), access to a FAT32 partition is necessary. I'm surprised that RedHat 7.2 says the support is ALPHA. Linux has been working with FAT32 for a very long time. I've never had trouble with FAT32 and linux. Now, Win2K and FAT32 I HAVE had problems with... Tim
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
JTK wrote: The... ah why the hell do I bother, nobody here cares enough about this project to put it to sleep, let alone make it good. You got that right ... nobody cares about what you think. Maybe you should be the one who should go to sleep and have a chill pill. Mozilla's failue or success has nothing to do with you. Have you check Netscape speed criteria for Mach V? Maybe someone can point to you the URL. They are certainly MUCH tighter than the ones you thought you helped develop. They played a joke on you and you took it seriosuly? Is your employer letting you use their computer systems again to harrass the non- Micorosft newsgroups. Maybe you are not working anymore for a company with a reputation for faulty products that do endanger people's lifes. Are (were) you as concerned for that as you are for Mozilla's quality? Even if you don't work for them anymore, did you ever bring that issue to your employer. Maybe we should contact them again to find out how much you contributed to their quality product, Mr Van '... Have you complained to MS about their swiss cheese IE and their weekly security issues? I hope you are current with all the fixes for you super fast, super stable IE6 .
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Jonathan Wilson wrote: From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things not really. Accually, its probobly more like this: The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not asked to by the user with no way to turn it off is not better) But on the other hand, we have the managers and marketing department plus the people at AOLTW that seem not to care about the product known as mozilla and also as netscape 6. What I dont understand is just what AOLTW or netscape corp accually gains out of this favicon.ico thing. Have you ever peered at File Types in your File Associations list ?? See the little icons to the left of the association ?? If you're looking for a particular file-type association you can scroll the list looking for the associated icon in the left column without having to read the text. Same idea here when looking for bookmarks for instance .. get the picture now? ;-) -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 18 Dec 2001: If you think the implementation is poor, could you file concrete bugs regarding the concerns that you have or perhaps state them here? There are AFAIK only a handful of current remaining issues with the implementation. I don't believe I can say anything that wasn't already said here and in Bugzilla. That I don't think random requests for /favicon.ico should happen. If the site has a link tag specifying it, fine. Maybe if the site is being bookmarked a random request could be made. But doing it at least once for every domain I visit is just too much. I'd rather see just the link and have evangelism go happy with the rest of the sites and convince them to add link tags. -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Mozilla compatible - What do you think can I do?
Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 18 Dec 2001: As someone who dual-boots (although I haven't booted into Windows for quite some time), access to a FAT32 partition is necessary. I'm surprised that RedHat 7.2 says the support is ALPHA. Linux has been working with FAT32 for a very long time. I've never had trouble with FAT32 and linux. Now, Win2K and FAT32 I HAVE had problems with... Cause you are dual booting. If you were to go 100% linux you wouldn't have a FAT32 partition, correct I hope? -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Browser problem
John W. Funke wrote: I just installed 9.6, previously had Netscape 6.2. When starting the browser, all I get is the msgbox Error launching browser window.no XBL binding for browser Run NS 6.2 again, choose either modern or classic theme, then you will be able to run Mozilla. (I suppose you did use another theme with NS 6.2?) -- Greetings to Echelon and the NSA: president usa attack world trade center afghanistan terrorist terrorism bioterrorism anthrax white house pentagon car bomb
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
David Hyatt wrote: If you think the implementation is poor, could you file concrete bugs regarding the concerns that you have or perhaps state them here? There are AFAIK only a handful of current remaining issues with the implementation. Not that I think it is poor implementation, and I do like it, but if an icon expires from cache than when Mozilla/bookmarks load the default icon is used. In my opinion, it should either continue to use the site icon even though it has expired from cache or else it should request a new copy of icons which are stale(the problem with this being I don't think Mozilla should assume it is online when it is started). Sort of like Bug 113102.
Re: Significance of nightlies
Fulvio Perini wrote: Thank you for the tip.I had forgotten about Mozillazine.It is interesting that only the 12-6 nightly allowed me to hover on the trunkated Subject in News I think it was backed out because you could not click on the tooltip to read the message, which made message reading difficult. -- Greetings to Echelon and the NSA: president usa attack world trade center afghanistan terrorist terrorism bioterrorism anthrax white house pentagon car bomb
OTRe: Mozilla compatible - What do you think can I do?
DeMoN LaG wrote: Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 18 Dec 2001: As someone who dual-boots (although I haven't booted into Windows for quite some time), access to a FAT32 partition is necessary. I'm surprised that RedHat 7.2 says the support is ALPHA. Linux has been working with FAT32 for a very long time. I've never had trouble with FAT32 and linux. Now, Win2K and FAT32 I HAVE had problems with... Cause you are dual booting. If you were to go 100% linux you wouldn't have a FAT32 partition, correct I hope? Yes and no. I've got a significant amuont of disk space allocated to FAT32 containing music files, MP3 and WAV (WAVs have most of the space). Until I have space elsewhere to hold that data whilest converting it to ext2, it'll remain FAT32. Even when I delete Windows from my PC (as soon as GNUCash's scheduled transaction support, currently available via CVS, stablizes). For now, though, I still gotta keep Winders around for Quicken :-( (accessed usually via WINE rather than re-booting the PC). Tim
Re: Browser problem
Christian Biesinger wrote: John W. Funke wrote: I just installed 9.6, previously had Netscape 6.2. When starting the browser, all I get is the msgbox Error launching browser window.no XBL binding for browser Run NS 6.2 again, choose either modern or classic theme, then you will be able to run Mozilla. (I suppose you did use another theme with NS 6.2?) Yeah, American. :-) Thanks, it works now. John
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
On 18/12/2001 at 07:55 Jay Garcia wrote: Have you ever peered at File Types in your File Associations list ?? See the little icons to the left of the association ?? If you're looking for a particular file-type association you can scroll the list looking for the associated icon in the left column without having to read the text. Same idea here when looking for bookmarks for instance .. get the picture now? ;-) Patronising people is such an easy thing to do. Especially if you haven't spent that much time really thinking about it. Simon -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: Skin installation
Dennis Katsonis wrote: I have been given some mozilla themes as a .jar file, but cant seem to find a way to install them. Anyone know how without having to install them from the site? I've already got them, just a matter of knowing where to put them. By the way, I'm running Red Hat Linux 7.1. If they were made to be installed from a site then in the URL bar enter javascript:t=InstallTrigger;t.installChrome(t.SKIN,file://wherever.jar); If it's a .xpi file just click on it or drag and drop on a browser window. If it was not made to be installed from a site then you need to get instructions from whomever gave you the skin, there will be a variable number of lines you'll need to add to your installed-chrome.txt file -Dan Veditz
Newbie questions
I ran the talkback build mozilla-win32-0.9.6-stub-installer.exe The browser sez congrats, your build is older than 3 weeks, download a newer build. and dumped me into http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.6/ Now what? So I go to mozilla.org/ and click on Nightly BuildsWindows which downloads mozilla-win32-talkback.zip (I use PKZip v 2.50, 9/15/96. Hmmm, didn't realize it was that old.) Now what do I do? Extract those 418 files into the Program Files/mozilla.org/mozilla/ directory? (Yes, I would create the sub directories contained in the zip file.) What about next week or tomorrow or whatever? Do the same thing all over again? Thanks. John OS- Win ME
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
Now that this thread has been posted *to death*, it is time to summarize and hopefully come to conclusions: 1) favicon.ico: not too much *good* discussion. AFAICT there is no 'official' (as per the W3) standard of indicating an icon file. I did some research on this, read on. Apparently recent builds of Mozilla support Website/Shortcut icons using the link REL= "icon" HREF= "." method. However, (AFAICT) the W3's HTML 4.01 spec does not indicate any support for an icon. See the 4.01 Link spec for more info. However, this MicroSoft Developer Network site (ya ya I know, Microsoft Sucks...) indicates that the icon can be designated (*to IE* at least) with HTML. Since the W3 doesn't appear to support the 'embedded' icon I would hope that Mozilla follows this guideline as per Mozilla's 'prime directive' to be, "The most standards compliant browser available." In any case, the only sensible thing to do is GET the icon if *and only if* the page indicates and iconexists. ASSUMING the favicon.ico exists is silly and is a poorly implemented idea. 2) NO-CACHE: not too much good discussion here either. Some say, "turn it on" others say "wait a bit" and fix the *bigger* problems. I believe the chaching issue is important to the end user experience, but to make the caching work properly, other issues must be addressed. *BE PATIENT* all will be revealed (and working) in time. :) 3) BACKSPACE Keyboard shortcut: Uggh, so much has been discussed it is hard to decide what is the best 'default' behavior. It is fairly apparent that people do not like the BACKSPACE/SHIFT+BACKSPACE navigation shortcuts. Alternate shortcut combinations have been offered up, but nothing has been an outstanding choice. One thing that is fairly unanimous is that the BACKSPACE/SHIFT+BACKSPACE shortcut keys have to go. It appears to be too ambiguous (and I agree). Backspace should do nothing but delete text. IMHO, I do not see what the problem with (left/right) ALT+ARROWKEY is, but it was suggested that the coding for this shortcut be placed in region specific code so that it may be changed (easier) to adapt to non-US keyboard layouts. Also, I believe ALT+ARROWKEY is probably the 'least conflicting' key combo on most systems. I hope someone finds this useful and maybe we can put this thread to rest. Regards, J M Jesse Ruderman wrote: Netscape recently checked in three changes that had been discussed and shotdown in older bugs. I don't believe that they notified the participants inany of the older bugs. Each change was checked in within two hours of thefiling of the new bug, leaving no time for users to object and for QA tomark the bugs as wontfix. If Mozilla 0.9.7 is going to be better thanMozilla 0.9.6, these changes should be reversed.FAVICON.ICOBug 109843: 14 minutes from filing to checkin.Mozilla now automatically attempts to retrieve "favicon.ico" the first timea user visits a site, effectively making it impossible for sites to opt outof the site-icon feature. If sites do not add a favicon.ico file, they willstill have to pay for extra bandwidth used, and will have to waste timelooking through error logs full of "favicon.ico not found". This is aboutas antisocial a browser can be short of implementing bug 109750. The original summary of the bug was "Turn on favicon pref", which I changedto "Turn on aggressive favicon.ico search by default" after the checkin wasmade. I thought "favicon" (also mentioned in the Mozilla 0.9.6 releasenotes) meant supporting site icons in bookmarks, not asking every server fora file called "favicon.ico".I did not see an announcement in any of the newsgroups I read. Comment #20indicates that it was discussed as a subthread of a thread that was 10 daysold at the time (new subthreads of old threads are nearly invisible to mostnews clients).Previous discussion in bug 106328 and bug 32087 showed no indication of adesire to honor site icons except those linked to with a link rel="shortcuticon".I have seen numerous complaints about this feature, both in Bugzilla and onthe Mozilla 0.9.6 Slashdot story (which is amazing considering that the prefwas turned on only on the 0.9.6+ tru n k).NO-CACHEBug 101832: 97 minutes from filing to checkin.Mozilla now reloads pages with no-cache headers when the user hits the backbutton. This makes Slashdot threads virtually impossible to read withoutopening a new window for each link, even on a fast connection (bug 105395,wontfix).Counter-bug 112564 has already been filed.BACKSPACEBug 108816: 31 minutes from filing to checkin.Mozilla now has the Backspace key mapped to the back button, andShift+backspace mapped to the forward button. The shortcut had been removedmore than three months earlier in bug 69981 for at least four reasons:- It's generally a good idea to avoid having shortcuts that work in oneplace but don't work in another place.- Backspace can't go back a
Re: Newbie questions
John Funke wrote: I ran the talkback build mozilla-win32-0.9.6-stub-installer.exe The browser sez congrats, your build is older than 3 weeks, download a newer build. and dumped me into http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.6/ Now what? So I go to mozilla.org/ and click on Nightly BuildsWindows which downloads mozilla-win32-talkback.zip (I use PKZip v 2.50, 9/15/96. Hmmm, didn't realize it was that old.) Now what do I do? Extract those 418 files into the Program Files/mozilla.org/mozilla/ directory? (Yes, I would create the sub directories contained in the zip file.) What about next week or tomorrow or whatever? Do the same thing all over again? Thanks. John OS- Win ME You can download new builds whenever you want since Mozilla is always getting better. The only reason they give you that warning is that technically all Mozilla builds are for 'testing' so you would want to test the more recent build with all the fixes and feature enhancements... There is nothing in the code which will ever make a build stop working because it is too old, so theoretically you could change your home page so that you never get that message and then continue using the same build forever...
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
Yes, this is one of the known issues. It's compounded by the fact that when you crash or don't cleanly exit, the entire disk cache has a tendency to flush itself on the next restart. I will probably need to ignore the expirations specified by the Web site for favicons. Most servers haven't bothered to special case those, since IE just downloads the favicons and keeps them around according to its own cache policy (ignoring the expiration). Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Travis Crump wrote: David Hyatt wrote: If you think the implementation is poor, could you file concrete bugs regarding the concerns that you have or perhaps state them here? There are AFAIK only a handful of current remaining issues with the implementation. Not that I think it is poor implementation, and I do like it, but if an icon expires from cache than when Mozilla/bookmarks load the default icon is used. In my opinion, it should either continue to use the site icon even though it has expired from cache or else it should request a new copy of icons which are stale(the problem with this being I don't think Mozilla should assume it is online when it is started). Sort of like Bug 113102.
blinking titlebar on win2000
this may be a pretty clueless question, but why is the title bar flashing on my nightly build for windows? anthony
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Peter Trudelle wrote: One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors. Absolutely. Site/page icons is a great feature. But automatically requesting favicon.ico unless there's a link to it in the document is NOT a good thing to do. It would almost be like automatically requesting favbackg.gif if no background picture is specified. One of the problems with this is that small sites hosted by services like Geocities will automatically get the favicon.ico of their free hosting provider. That can be very annoying. Another issue is that some sites has a limit on the amount of data that can be transferred each month. They want to keep their sites as small as possible, and even though this is just a small request for a small file, it can still be a problem for some people. Some people are even blocking Mozilla from their sites because of this! Mozilla's way of doing this spams servers much more than IE's, since Moz request favicon.ico for every visit (IE only does it when the page is bookmarked). It's only a few sites that block Mozilla for this, and IMO blocking Mozilla just because of this is to go way too far, but still, it does show that many webmasters are not happy about the way it is now. (Before anyone accuses me of lying or having a very bad memory, let me say that, yes, I myself have talked about blocking Mozilla. It was stupid of me, I know, but I was just so shocked when Mozilla suddenly copied one of IE's biggest misfeatures when we had the chance to implement it correctly that I simply couldn't think clearly. And my comment http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109843#c24 was just an empty threat anyway - I do produce websites, but I do not have anything to do with the physical servers, and I don't care whether they are spammed with bogus requests or not. It is probably the most stupid comment I have ever made in Bugzilla - I admit that.) So please, whoever is in charge here, would you please reconsider this decision? Site/page icons /is/ a very nice feature, but it is only eye candy! With all the disadvantages that comes with auto-fetching favicon.ico, wouldn't the best long-term solution be to disable the auto-fetching and instead evangelise sites to use link rel=icon? I think that that is what would be best for Mozilla, best for the sites, and best for the Web.[1] [1] I don't want anybody - that includes you, JTK - to reply to this with something like yeah, but it's not best for AOL and they are the ones who really control this project. -- /Jonas `amazing! did I really write all that?´ Jørgensen
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
As I've said several times before, Mozilla does not spam the site on every visit, only on the first visit. It then caches information of a miss to prevent spamming the site again (and this persists across sessions), and on a hit it caches the favicon itself to prevent spamming the site again (this also persists acros sessions). Favicons are always requested in such a way that the caches are checked first, so validation doesn't occur. One issue with favicons is that I'm honoring the expiration set by the Web site, and I need to quit doing that, since that leads the icons to expire relatively quickly. Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Some people are even blocking Mozilla from their sites because of this! Mozilla's way of doing this spams servers much more than IE's, since Moz request favicon.ico for every visit (IE only does it when the page is bookmarked).
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
David Hyatt wrote: Some people are even blocking Mozilla from their sites because of this! Mozilla's way of doing this spams servers much more than IE's, since Moz request favicon.ico for every visit (IE only does it when the page is bookmarked). As I've said several times before, Mozilla does not spam the site on every visit, only on the first visit. It then caches information of a miss to prevent spamming the site again (and this persists across sessions), and on a hit it caches the favicon itself to prevent spamming the site again (this also persists acros sessions). Favicons are always requested in such a way that the caches are checked first, so validation doesn't occur. You're right. Bad wording. With every visit I didn't mean that it requests the file every time you visit the page, just that it requests it the first time you visit the page whether you bookmark it or not. IE only requests favicon.ico when you bookmark the page (unless there's a link rel=shortcut icon/), so Moz still requests it much more often than IE. Still, that doesn't answer my question - why not just evangelise sites to use link rel=icon? (You _do_ agree that in an ideal world, every page that had an icon would also have a link to it, don't you?) -- /Jonas Thousands of innocent people killed at the WTC. Thousands of innocent people killed in the US's bombing of Afghanistan. How can you say that one of these actions is good while the other is an act of terrorism?
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
So have we. It's called the Classic Skin (if you're not using it, try View-Apply Theme-Classic). You'll notice that our native widgets actually emulate the OS widget set better than IE ;-) -Ben A Martinez wrote: So please, can you explain me which widgets are you talking about? I don't see anything in IE5 that can't be used in any other app, and surely they have developed the widgets following the rest of the OS look feel.
Re: Java window betanews does not work ???????
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Jadzia wrote: When I press the VIEW CHANGES on www.betanews.com (any of the programs ofcourse) I do not get the popup window. So java does not work correctly. But, Java applets do work. I can play java games and all.. You mean that Java*Script* does not work correctly. When you just say the word Java, it means Java applets. OkOkOk Java scripts do not work on my mozilla... The setting is enabled in options/advanced. So that's not it. Any ideas???
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Actually he's making the case for the key usability benefit of this feature. Simon P. Lucy wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> On 18/12/2001 at 07:55 Jay Garcia wrote: Have you ever peered at "File Types" in your File Associations list ??See the little icons to the left of the association ?? If you're lookingfor a particular file-type association you can scroll the list lookingfor the associated icon in the left column without having to read thetext. Same idea here when looking for bookmarks for instance .. get thepicture now? ;-) Patronising people is such an easy thing to do. Especially if you haven'tspent that much time really thinking about it.
CGI Scripting bug?
I use a web-based calendar called Webcal. Recently, I've run into a cgi/perl or javascript bug which causes me to have to submit calendar changes twice before they are accepted. I did not have this problem with a November 23rd build under linux, but a recent linux nightly and current Win32 nightlies exhibit the problem. I do not know when the problem first started, but it's been at least a couple weeks. To see what happens, go to this link: http://bulldog.tzo.org/perl/webcal.cgi?function=webmonthcal=publicyear=2001month=12 Click on a date in the calendar and create a new entry (the field at the top left of the entry screen is the most important field). Then click Submit. You will be presented with another dialog where you must click Submit again. At that point the entry is accepted. Does anyone know what's going on with this? Is it: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110310 The calendar entry works as expected with NC4.7x and Konqueror under linux, NC4.7x and MSIE 5.5 under Win2K. Thanks, Tim
Re: blinking titlebar on win2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this may be a pretty clueless question, but why is the title bar flashing on my nightly build for windows? anthony I have encountered this, and it is very annoying since it messes up the auto-hide of the taskbar. It happens at random times and closing and reopening the window usually fixes it(Mozilla doesn't need to be closed and generally if I have both mail and browser open, only one will do it and I just close and reopen that one).
Re: Java window betanews does not work ???????
Jadzia wrote: Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Jadzia wrote: When I press the VIEW CHANGES on www.betanews.com (any of the programs ofcourse) I do not get the popup window. So java does not work correctly. But, Java applets do work. I can play java games and all.. You mean that Java*Script* does not work correctly. When you just say the word Java, it means Java applets. OkOkOk Java scripts do not work on my mozilla... The setting is enabled in options/advanced. So that's not it. Any ideas??? No, it works for me... -- /Jonas Thousands of innocent people killed at the WTC. Thousands of innocent people killed in the US's bombing of Afghanistan. How can you say that one of these actions is good while the other is an act of terrorism?
Re: OTRe: Mozilla compatible - What do you think can I do?
Tim Wunder wrote: DeMoN LaG wrote: Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 18 Dec 2001: As someone who dual-boots (although I haven't booted into Windows for quite some time), access to a FAT32 partition is necessary. I'm surprised that RedHat 7.2 says the support is ALPHA. Linux has been working with FAT32 for a very long time. I've never had trouble with FAT32 and linux. Now, Win2K and FAT32 I HAVE had problems with... Cause you are dual booting. If you were to go 100% linux you wouldn't have a FAT32 partition, correct I hope? Yes and no. I've got a significant amuont of disk space allocated to FAT32 containing music files, MP3 and WAV (WAVs have most of the space). Until I have space elsewhere to hold that data whilest converting it to ext2, it'll remain FAT32. Even when I delete Windows from my PC (as soon as GNUCash's scheduled transaction support, currently available via CVS, stablizes). For now, though, I still gotta keep Winders around for Quicken :-( (accessed usually via WINE rather than re-booting the PC). Tim What's WINE? -- Charlie in San Francisco
Re: OTRe: Mozilla compatible - What do you think can I do?
Charlie in San Francisco wrote: Tim Wunder wrote: DeMoN LaG wrote: Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 18 Dec 2001: As someone who dual-boots (although I haven't booted into Windows for quite some time), access to a FAT32 partition is necessary. I'm surprised that RedHat 7.2 says the support is ALPHA. Linux has been working with FAT32 for a very long time. I've never had trouble with FAT32 and linux. Now, Win2K and FAT32 I HAVE had problems with... Cause you are dual booting. If you were to go 100% linux you wouldn't have a FAT32 partition, correct I hope? Yes and no. I've got a significant amuont of disk space allocated to FAT32 containing music files, MP3 and WAV (WAVs have most of the space). Until I have space elsewhere to hold that data whilest converting it to ext2, it'll remain FAT32. Even when I delete Windows from my PC (as soon as GNUCash's scheduled transaction support, currently available via CVS, stablizes). For now, though, I still gotta keep Winders around for Quicken :-( (accessed usually via WINE rather than re-booting the PC). Tim What's WINE? Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's an implementation of Windows API that runs on various OSes including Linux.
Re: IE chrome for mozilla
Sören Kuklau wrote: Well to Taras: K-Meleon looks a bit like IE (and is intended to do so), and has the Gecko engine from Mozilla. But an IE chrome... I wonder if anyone would do such a thing (definitly not Netscape, Beonex, etc., and most likely not mozilla.org guys or volunteers). Actually I made an IE skin a while back, (M18 time or something), but I didn't maintain it because of the constant XUL changes. I might make another one once mozilla1.0 is out, or I might just get a set of images that can be swopped into the jar easily. Ian
Re: IE chrome for mozilla
Sören Kuklau wrote: Well to Taras: K-Meleon looks a bit like IE (and is intended to do so), and has the Gecko engine from Mozilla. But an IE chrome... I wonder if anyone would do such a thing (definitly not Netscape, Beonex, etc., and most likely not mozilla.org guys or volunteers). Actually I made an IE skin a while back, (M18 time or something), but I didn't maintain it because of the constant XUL changes. I might make another one once mozilla1.0 is out, or I might just get a set of images that can be swopped into the jar easily. Ian
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
Peter Mutsaers wrote: Well, 90% of web users (via IE) are used to backspace being used for this. While I'm not exactly an IE (nor MSFT) fan, I'd say this is one of the few things they got right in the last decennium. Please leave it in Mozilla. Backspace is an undocumented feature in IE (in that it is not listed in the menu - it may be in some developer docs somewhere), so how come so many users are used to it? How did they find it? I'm guessing that it was when they were trying to delete something. Ian
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
On 18/12/2001 at 12:16 Ben Goodger wrote: Actually he's making the case for the key usability benefit of this feature. No. He was being patronising. An icon for a bookmark is not equivalent to an icon for a file type. The number of different types of file icon is quite small, and easily remembered by the user after some small amount of use. It also means an entirely different thing. It means I can use this file with the application that uses 'this' icon. Whereas a bookmark icon means what? The icon belonging to some site, or the owner of that site. Where is the semantic connection with the actual bookmark and the icon? How likely am I to remember amongst hundreds of other bookmarks what a particular icon is supposed to mean, and then for all of the icons that are from the same site how am I to differentiate between the different bookmarks? Its a feature which seems to be of use at first glance, that at greater thought seems useless except as an advertising medium. If that is its intent then say so, but don't pretend it really increases useablilty because in actual use it really won't except in those small cases where the user would remember the actual site anyway because it was so important. Simon . Simon P. Lucy wrote: On 18/12/2001 at 07:55 Jay Garcia wrote: Have you ever peered at File Types in your File Associations list ?? See the little icons to the left of the association ?? If you're looking for a particular file-type association you can scroll the list looking for the associated icon in the left column without having to read the text. Same idea here when looking for bookmarks for instance .. get the picture now? ;-) Patronising people is such an easy thing to do. Especially if you haven't spent that much time really thinking about it.
Re: Mozilla logo
Chocobo_greens wrote: snip all i asked was that there be a alternavive version of mozilla without the communist icons for those who wish not to have them.. or at least the option of not having them .. is that too much to ask? Your wish is my command. http://beonex.com/communicator/ http://home.netscape.com/computing/download/index.html --Asa
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Simon P. Lucy wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> That tends to imply that it was an AOL product requirement and notnecessarily a mozilla.org one. Not imply, I was clear that this requirement came from Netscape marketing. [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> I can't see any downside to AOL implementing their own feature set but this kind of feature seems a little odd to force on what is intended to be a standards compliant piece of software. This is Netscape implementing the feature (not AOL), and offering it to mozilla.org. It does nothing to reduce mozilla's stature as the most standards compliant browser on the web. [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Its also just a little disengenuous to say that AOL features are simply theresult of customer requests, we both know that most features are marketingdriven and that a major marketing reason to have this kind of feature is tohighlight Netscape portal bookmarks. It would be disingenuous, but *I did not say that*, I said *this feature* came from customer requests. In fact, only about 95% of our new features come from customer requests, the rest all come from marketing scheming to make us more money. I talked this over with my marketing wing man this morning, and he admitted that he is not clever enough to come up with all the new features himself, and so relies on user requests. Its called inbound marketing, and it works. [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> That's not to say that there is anything conspiritorial in AOL pushing this feature into the mainstream development rather than keeping it at a product/distributor level but you can hardly blame people for citing it as another example of AOL having whatAOL wants and damning all the rest. Again, it is Netscape, not AOL, and we are doing what we do nearly all the time: offering our work to mozilla.org. If they want it in their browser, how is that pushing or damning? [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> The only speed advantage gained in having a little icon depends onremembering what the little icon means, which requires marketing dollarsspent on making that a recognisable icon. The number of these is actuallygoing to be relatively small, given the antipathy that mozilla.org has tohosting advertising within the chrome, why should (even given any of thereasonable technical objections being answered), mozilla advertise AOL,Netscape, Amazon and so on? Oh yes, advertising is about choice isn't it.Well let the choice be whether someone installs Netscape, not whether theyhave a mozilla based browser or not. The benefit is there, and is applied uniformly regardless of which sites you visit. If few sites have this, then you should remember that only a few sites account for most of the traffic on the web. In fact, mozilla likes this feature so much that they immediately added a favicon of their own. [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> The user has the option of titling any and all bookmarks to make themunderstandable, an icon unless it will always perform a useful task, justtakes up space. Personally, I'd remove the curious existing bookmark iconanyway, it serves no real purpose. Since you seem reluctant to acknowledge its value in recognizing the object, how about its value as an affordance for drag drop? [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> I think its a misuse of AOL's position to force this feature onto mozilla.org and if the feature remains it seems reasonable that people raise bugs on it as beingundesirable. Again, no force was used. You are entitled to file bugs saying that you don't like the feature, but I would consider them to be a frivolous waste of everyone's time. Please report real defects or performance or usability problems instead. [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> I've never much held to the view that mozilla is anything to do withbrowser wars as such and this is certainly not a feature that's likely towin any awards or kudos. I don't think anyone much buys that AOL is forthe little guy anymore. It was barely supportable when it was Netscapesaying it. AOL is, AFAIK, one of the few companies generously supporting development of free, open source browsers for all major platforms. Despite this, they get endless streams of vitriol from the very people using those browsers. Does it bother your sensibilities that they also must make a profit? Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape
Ian Thomas wrote: Peter Mutsaers wrote: Well, 90% of web users (via IE) are used to backspace being used for this. While I'm not exactly an IE (nor MSFT) fan, I'd say this is one of the few things they got right in the last decennium. Please leave it in Mozilla. Backspace is an undocumented feature in IE (in that it is not listed in the menu - it may be in some developer docs somewhere), so how come so many users are used to it? How did they find it? I'm guessing that it was when they were trying to delete something. Ian Windows 2000 Help -Reference-Keyboard Shortcuts-Windows 2000 keyboard shortcuts although I must admit that the shortcuts that Mozilla supports seems to be a random subset(for instance Ctrl-right/left is supported but Ctrl-Up/down isn't)
Free Travel
Congratulations!!! You've been selected for a chance to receive a Florida Vacation Getaway Click here for your Florida Vacation Getaway Vacation includes: 8 days/7 nights of first-class accommodations Allows up to four travelers Rental car with unlimited mileage Adult casino cruise Click here for your Florida Vacation Getaway Visit our website here to be removed.
Re: Spammage
Jason Fleshman wrote: Melissa 'Liss' Tyson wrote: Hi all. I'm a long-time Moz user (well long-time in the development of Mozilla) who just finally joined the mailing lists. I'm enjoying reading the lists, but I have one complaint. This email account has been up for almost a month. I've been subbed to a lot of info and security lists in that time. I've never posted to any of them, just read 'em and I've never gotten one piece of spam. Until last night. When I signed up for these lists. In the past twelve hours, I've gotten six junk emails (No, I have not ever /had/ a penis and even if I did, I would not want your fscking pills...). One of these mails was actually received from one of the Moz lists and it was the exact same as two of the others that have been popping up in this inbox. Quite obviously, my address was grabbed somehow in relation to signing up for these lists. Anyone know wtf is going on? Liss, who knows she's also opening herself up to harvesters by just posting. These mailing lists are also Usenet groups (which is how most of the people here access them, FWIW). Spammers post here, hoping to find someone dumb enough to read their messages. So nobody's spamming you directly; they're spamming all of us. Although if you're going to post, I would recommend getting a Yahoo, Hotmail, or other free spambucket account to use as your return address. --Jason Spoofing works decently well too, although it has to be a unique spoof. Spammers have probably figured out how to delete NOSPAM by now. -- Albert We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready-made'? --Winston Churchill If sending email, remove the obvious spam-preventer from my email address.
Re: Newbie questions
John Funke wrote: I ran the talkback build mozilla-win32-0.9.6-stub-installer.exe The browser sez congrats, your build is older than 3 weeks, download a newer build. and dumped me into http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.6/ You can happily continue using 0.9.6 if you like, it's the most recent release although 0.9.7 should be out soon. If you're going to file a bug, however, *please* check out a recent nightly build first. We're drowning in duplicate bugs which is probably why the three-week warning message was added. -Dan Veditz
Re: CGI Scripting bug?
Tim Wunder wrote: ...You will be presented with another dialog where you must click Submit again. Um, just to clarify. You should only have to click Submit once. That's the way the November 23 linux build worked, but current builds don't. So, having to click Submit again is the bug I'm seeing. Regards, Tim
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Wilson) wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a good thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit does it have (other than displaying a pretty little icon in the URL bar?) It's very handy if you're browsing using tabs, especially when you have enough tabs open that you can't read enough of the page title to tell what it is. Of course, for multiple pages on one site, it's still not helpful, but I find it quite useful. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot nethttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Simon P. Lucy wrote: On 18/12/2001 at 12:16 Ben Goodger wrote: Actually he's making the case for the key usability benefit of this feature. No. He was being patronising. An icon for a bookmark is not equivalent to an icon for a file type. The number of different types of file icon is quite small, and easily remembered by the user after some small amount of use. It also means an entirely different thing. It means I can use this file with the application that uses 'this' icon. Whereas a bookmark icon means what? The icon belonging to some site, or the owner of that site. Where is the semantic connection with the actual bookmark and the icon? How likely am I to remember amongst hundreds of other bookmarks what a particular icon is supposed to mean, and then for all of the icons that are from the same site how am I to differentiate between the different bookmarks? Its a feature which seems to be of use at first glance, that at greater thought seems useless except as an advertising medium. If that is its intent then say so, but don't pretend it really increases useablilty because in actual use it really won't except in those small cases where the user would remember the actual site anyway because it was so important. Simon . Simon P. Lucy wrote: On 18/12/2001 at 07:55 Jay Garcia wrote: Have you ever peered at File Types in your File Associations list ?? See the little icons to the left of the association ?? If you're looking for a particular file-type association you can scroll the list looking for the associated icon in the left column without having to read the text. Same idea here when looking for bookmarks for instance .. get the picture now? ;-) Patronising people is such an easy thing to do. Especially if you haven't spent that much time really thinking about it. No, I was NOT being patronizing at all. What Ben says is exactly what I meant to convey. The whole idea of my rationalizing the example of association icons is the ease by which a user can find one in the quite long list. Same for bookmarks. If you're searching bookmarks looking for CNN for instance, that bright red C really stands out. You completely missed my point in favor of hurling insults !! bah .. :-[ -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?
Simon P. Lucy wrote: The number of different types of file icon is quite small, and easily remembered by the user after some small amount of use. I may not be typical, but I have many more different file system icons than favicons. It also means an entirely different thing. It means I can use this file with the application that uses 'this' icon. Whereas a bookmark icon means what? The icon belonging to some site, or the owner of that site. Where is the semantic connection with the actual bookmark and the icon? I think you might be surprised how little distinction users might make between these two scenarios. In each case, they have an icon that they may recognize as referring to the context where they first saw or created the content. When they click it, they know that they will see the contents represented by the icon within that context. Remember, these are the same users that make no distinction between browser chrome and web content. How likely am I to remember amongst hundreds of other bookmarks what a particular icon is supposed to mean, Very likely, since your brain is quite good at quickly analyzing, distinguishing and matching graphical patterns. Why do you claim above that remembering file system icons is easy, yet now contend that bookmark icons are hard? and then for all of the icons that are from the same site how am I to differentiate between the different bookmarks? Having lots of bookmarks for the same site is probably not the typical case, but as you said in a recent post, The user has the option of titling any and all bookmarks to make them understandable... Its a feature which seems to be of use at first glance, that at greater thought seems useless except as an advertising medium. Well, my thought must surely be lesser, because it seems to be of use to me. If that is its intent then say so, but don't pretend it really increases useablilty because in actual use it really won't except in those small cases where the user would remember the actual site anyway because it was so important. Pretend? Why do you assume that statements you don't agree with are lies? Please allow for the possibility that other people actually believe something you don't, even if you won't allow for the possibility you could be wrong. Peter
Re: IE chrome for mozilla
H... any screenshots? Oh and is there any patch or chrome or whatever for a full Mozilla MDI Interface (yes, I know tabbrowser, but that's not true MDI... and it's not for myself.). Ian Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Sören Kuklau wrote: Well to Taras: K-Meleon looks a bit like IE (and is intended to do so), and has the Gecko engine from Mozilla. But an IE chrome... I wonder if anyone would do such a thing (definitly not Netscape, Beonex, etc., and most likely not mozilla.org guys or volunteers). Actually I made an IE skin a while back, (M18 time or something), but I didn't maintain it because of the constant XUL changes. I might make another one once mozilla1.0 is out, or I might just get a set of images that can be swopped into the jar easily. Ian
