Re: What about IE compatibility?
Garth Wallace wrote: "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote: Actually IE for Mac has the ability to use Active-X though I have itturned off. (Have one website I have to use it for)Mozilla does support a Variation on Active-X not based on the Microsoft model.Supposedly all the dangerous code is left out (I belive its calledeither Xpcom or XUL). No it doesn't. It uses a version of COM called XPCOM.ActiveX uses a different version of COM written byMicrosoft. Mozilla is built with XPCOM, but it is possible to host ActiveX controls albeit in a limited fashion using this plugin: http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm The plugin for hosting controls is Win32 only and will not download, install or script controls. If you have the control installed you should be able to host it though. Bug 103940 covers a little work that will make the plugin run almost seamlessly from an OBJECT tag. It *might* get some scripting support at somepoint via Mozilla's XPT plugin scriping support. The Win32 version of Mozilla also has smatterings of COM/ActiveX here and there to support drag drop, clipboard, shortcuts, accesibility and a few other bits and pieces.
Re: What about IE compatibility?
Garth Wallace wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Adam Lock wrote: Mozilla is built with XPCOM, but it is possible to host ActiveXcontrols albeit in a limited fashion using this plugin:http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm Right, but that plugin isn't actually part ofMozilla. It's possible to write a plugin thatwould run Nintendo games too, but that doesn'tmean that Mozilla supports the NES ROM format. That depends on what you mean by "part of Mozilla". Certainly it doesn't ship with Mozilla the binary but it's in the source code (cvs) and governed by the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence. In terms of what the plugin is it is no more or less integrated with Mozilla than npnul32.dll is for instance.
Re: Should mozilla accept backslashes in URL's?
Anonymous wrote: Very often backslashes get incorporated into URLs on many websites, causing links to work in Internet Explorer, but to fail in mozilla. Mozilla already converts backslashes to forward slashes, at least on Win32: http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/docshell/base/nsDefaultURIFixup.cpp#76
Re: URL Links don't work?
Alexander Sperduti wrote: Do you know if the InternetShortcut object could be added to Win95 by upgrading system dll's or adding registry keys? If I'm lucky, the whole thing may reside in a single dll supplied in the IE installation. I don't know what DLL the objects is registered from in Win95 but it's in shdocvw.dll in W2k. Given Microsoft's habit of replacing many of the system DLLs, when IE is installed it's unlikely that you can install it on it's own because it may depend on other DLLs. You could always try installing and registering it assuming you have the IE cab files. The alternative as I mentioned is the parse the URL files yourself. It should be pretty trivial if you know perl or if not feed the results of 'grep URL= *.url' into a decent text editor and use keystroke macros to convert it over no problem. Adam
Re: component.reg?
Laurie Becker wrote: I downloaded mozilla 0.9 without the installer and foolishly imported component.reg into my registry. Now mozilla and netscape 6 won't start. Could someone give me the keys this imported? I had opened the file in notepad but most is binary. component.reg is a file that should be created in the bin directory the first time you run Mozilla. You shouldn't need to do anything with it to be able run Mozilla. Just make sure you have write permissions enabled for the Mozilla bin directory and that mozilla.exe is started with the bin directory as its working directory. You don't need to import it anywhere, and definitely NOT into the Windows registry. That could be prove fatal to your OS assuming regedit doesn't save you from yourself and reject it.
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know youwant this feature!
Peter Lairo wrote: It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99% of unintentional or novice snooping is highly significant. As I mentioned in the bug, Win95/98/Me *can* secure files by using something like PGP Disk. I'd trust this approach a lot more than to protect the profile with some half-baked glass-door security policy as the bug report suggests. Practically every other platform can protect the profile with file permissions so there should be no issue there assuming the admin knows what they're doing. -- Adam Lock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
