Re: Why can#65533;t I put in quotes?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], hugo vanwoerkom wrote: In mozilla (since 0.9.6) I am unable to use the quote symbol, it always comes out a question mark. In the subject of this post I hit the single quote and somebody made that #65533; When I hit the key it was a question mark. Yet in the same X console this works with 4.79. Where do I look to fix this? I have no idea what that's supposed to represent. All HTML 4 numeric character references (things that begin with # and end with ;) refer to Unicode, so the single closing quote/apostrophe is #8217;. This reference has no meaning outside of an HTML/XML context (i.e., in text/plain documents). -- Chris Hoess
Re: Warum hat Mozilla 0.9.9 so viele neue Bugs? Ein Sabotuer?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sören Kuklau wrote: German is Indogermanic, as is English. French, Italian, Spanish etc. are Romanic. Russian etc. are... hmm... Hunnic? Slavic. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Let's Vote! :)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Bamm Gabriana wrote: Would you rather have: 1) A JTK 2) A Bundy 3) A Lancer Send in your votes now! My vote: I'd rather have a Bundy. Bundies make a lot of sense if only they were more informed. Lancers are deluded souls. Wh... what about me?!?! What am I? Quite entertaining, although you've been slacking a bit lately. The giant AOL conspiracy and only the bugs I point out get fixed themes are considerably more interesting than Lancer's noodling around with aesthetics. Personally, I'd rather have free speech as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. But what do I know. Not a great deal about the difference between public fora and private news servers, if I read your insinuation correctly. (Although I'd be strongly opposed to moderating this forum, if anyone suggested it.) -- Chris Hoess
Re: The Standard
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Heinrich wrote: Parish wrote: Which is rather ironic because MS invented CSS *and* claim IE to be the most W3C-standards-compliant browser in the world. I might be woefully *under*informed, but I've always come across the invention of CSS in conjunction with the name Håkon Lie. What Microsoft did do is take out a patent on stylesheets in general. The status of it is (IMO) dubious, given the existence of prior art, but it has not yet been overturned. The usual intellectual property bogosity. -- Chris Hoess
Re: The Standard
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Netscape Basher wrote: The w3c was formed out of jealousy of Microsoft's success. It is based on hatred of MS I salute your pioneering work in advancing the field of ignorance, grasshopper. I look forward to hearing more of your wonderful tidbits of history, perhaps one in which Microsoft invents HTTP, but the Content-Type header is added by evil gnomes controlled by Richard M. Stallman, who does not understand the beauty of file extensions. -- Chris the salute I'm thinking of involves a single digit Hoess
Re: The Standard
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Netscape Basher wrote: Christopher Jahn typed: This group was established to create the World Wide Web in the first place. They did it by defining the standards that would allow software to be created that could use the standards to browse the internet. Without the standards set up by the W3c in the first place, there could be no WWW. False. It would of formed. No one group can claim to have founded the world wide web. One group can indeed claim to have done so, namely, CERN. See URL:http://www.w3.org/History.html. Furthermore, I'd contend that the WWW would not have developed without a framework of open standards for implementation: proprietary hypertext systems did exist, but have become a footnote to history, despite, in some cases, being more powerful than the open standard. (Where now is Hyper-G, for instance?) This is why they are the recognized international organization that sets the standards for the WWW. Wrong. They are one of many groups that makes this claim. Such as? It is interesting that the mozilla.org site is non-w3c compliant. When it is, let me know. cc yourself to bug 89885 and you'll find out. I have visited those sites many times, and i still have not found when, where, how and why the standard was born. Look at the creation date of the Consortium. The w3c is irrelvant. Nothing but pro-Linux, MS hating folks. URL:http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List ...Microsoft Corporation... Furthermore, two Microsoft representatives are on the XHTML 1.0 authors list, and they have been and are taking an active part in the development of CSS. (For that matter, they were touting Mac IE 5.1 for its improved support of aforesaid W3C recommendations.) I like the little filip of pro-Linux in there; your world is a bit...dualist, I take it? -- Chris Hoess
Re: The Standard
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Heinrich wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: I salute your pioneering work in advancing the field of ignorance, grasshopper. I look forward to hearing more of your wonderful tidbits of history, perhaps one in which Microsoft invents HTTP, but the Content-Type header is added by evil gnomes controlled by Richard M. Stallman, who does not understand the beauty of file extensions. Given the line breaks in the foregoing, I'd already added 'Nixon' before my eye shifted to the beginning of the next line and read 'Stallman'. . . . Best Conspiracy Theory Ever. Nixon: We are going to use any means. Is that clear? Haldeman: What about, what about, the MIMEs? Nixon: The MIMEs...but how the [expletive] do we [inaudible] Ehrlichman: Gnomes. [15 minutes of humming] Nixon: ...Content-Type. We'll show those [expletive]. I like it. -- Chris Hoess
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to Mozila! The fire marshal just called for you; he says you'll have to drag your strawman outside. -- Chris Hoess
Re: No privacy levels in 0.9.9??
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph N. wrote: I skipped over ver. 0.9.8 because of some of the reported issues, but have installed ver. 0.9.9. Although I am generally enthusiastic about its quality and speed, it seems (or perhaps it was 0.9.8) to have abandoned the protocol of allowing cookies based on privacy levels, i.e., where the cookie originates, whether there's a privacy policy for the issuer, and whether the cookie will be accepted, rejected, or taken for the session only. Was this abandoned? And, if so, why? P3P support is, AIUI, being rewritten. See the status reports at URL:http://www.mozilla.org/status/; harishd is working on this. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
In article ZIVh8.9357$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bundy wrote: Right now I am using Outlook Express 6 until Mozilla folks fix that damn focus bug. Would this be the one that was fixed on the 5th, the first patch for bug 109801 to appear at URL:http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?module=allrepositories who=ducarroz%25netscape.comsortby=Datedate=week? -- Chris Hoess
Re: javascript with mozilla 0.9.8
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Guenter Huerkamp wrote:
Can someone tell me why my banking site produce an empty page with
mozilla build 20020228.
Thanks
[snip]
script language=JavaScript1.2
var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;
if(ie4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=90,40,*,42');}
if(ns4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=93,40,*,45');}
/script
Mozilla supports the W3C DOM, which uses document.getElementById. File a
Tech Evangelism bug in Bugzilla (unless there's a bug already open on your
bank-search using the URL field in Bugzilla).
--
Chris Hoess
Re: keyaccess
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Craig Jones wrote: Just wondering if anyone knows about the plan to implement the keyaccess field in a link. accesskey, surely? -- Chris Hoess
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], KCOM wrote: [snip] And you got this idea that editing a Reuters press release would be a plausible troll...why? -- Chris Hoess
Re: For all the Einsteins, this is where you got Mozilla .9.9 from
In article vwih8.19602$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bundy wrote: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.9 Not even Garica knew about this, which shocks me. It's a peice of shit though. ...which is interesting and all, but URL:ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.9 doesn't exist, as it would were 0.9.9 released (as opposed to being baked on a branch, as depicted at URL:http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html). Tip: loudly and profanely exposing your ignorance of how Mozilla is released is *not* the fast track to fame, fortune, and credibility. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Bugzilla and search engines
In article a5e5kr$6nlkc$[EMAIL PROTECTED], michael lefevre wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: having googling sucking down pretty much the entire contents of the bugzilla database at frequent intervals could well be a significant burden on the bugzilla server(s)... You are talking about how you think Google works. Google doesn't do that. It will refetch more often the pages that it thinks are important according to its page ranking, i.e.: a few. Besides, search engines who care enough to voluntarily skip sites who ask it politely, care also to space requests in order to not impact too much on the server load. i'll admit i don't know the details, and what i wrote above was probably an exaggeration... however, if google doesn't update the pages frequently, then you have the other criticism that it will be out of date... More to the point, this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. It's already quite possible to do a full-text search on Bugzilla comments. The problem is that one tends to get either no results, or far too many. Google will not solve this. -- Chris Hoess
Re: layer indexing question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric wrote: strange, i used validator.w3.org and all that gave me was -- form Error: required attribute ACTION not specified link rel=shortcut icon href=http://ngd.kvi.nl/favicon.ico; Error: element LINK not allowed here; check which elements meta name=MSSmartTagsPreventParsing content=TRUE META HTTP-EQUIV=MSThemeCompatible Content=Yes border=0 alt=Nedstat counter nosave width=16 height=16/a -- and these are all by design. It gives me no warning about the divs. Out of curiosity, why have you designed link not to be in the head of your document? That doesn't make a great deal of sense. That's why i started wondering if maybe Mozilla maybe doesn't handle negative z-indexes properly. Bug 78087 has some discussion of negative z-index. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Odd page rendering
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel R. Tobias wrote: The government is right! Any terrorist can find information on how to make BOMs on the Internet! :) And those things are *dangerous*, too. -- Chris Hoess
Re: onmousewheel=
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus W wrote: Chris Hoess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus W wrote: This is not crap. This will make it possible to use the wheel to scroll in DHTML scrollers, which is a quite useful feature... ...for building even more ridiculously specific web pages. This page best viewed in IE 6--with a wheelmouse! You don't seem to understand the issue, or rather, are blinded by your anti-MS feelings. I say; this is a useful feature. I can provide examples of why it is a useful feature. Sure, it's a useful feature. So was font at one point, and SHORTTAG and OMITTAG, and so on, and so forth...but in the long run, all of them ultimately hinder the development of the Web. Features are not evil. Exposing hardware events is not evil. Implementation may be bad, and maybe some more thought should have gone into that event model, but the fact that a web designer can capture all kinds of mouse events makes it easier to build advanced web applications. In fairness, most of the blame should go to the W3C here, in dropping in a slapdash, mouse-centric model for event handlers. Onmousewheel is simply a logical extension of the current ad hoc way of doing things; unfortunately, the current way is wrong. It would be nice if MS said Waitasec, this whole way of doing things is broken; why don't we look at developing a better framework, but also unrealistic; it provides (as you rightly pointed out) an immediate, cheap payoff to DHTML authors, and the consequences when the installed base of DHTML on the web slams head-on into device independence issues is not their problem. So take this more as a lament that the W3C has screwed up again, and vendors have begun more-or-less innocently following, than a polemic against MS in particular. (I have a box of those at home, anyhow. :-) More object-oriented event handling WOULD be nice, though. Amen. Rather than the current hard-coded event handlers, there should perhaps be a mechanism to create generic event handlers and bind them to specific events in a flexible way (so that an event handler might be bound to a mouseover for mouse-equipped devices and, say, onread for a speech-based device). Unfortunately, most of the W3C's work on device independence has gone into CC/PP, which has always struck me as an unrealistic and unimpressive standard. On a somewhat more upbeat note, while I was poking around looking for an official list of event handlers, I found URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0036.html, which suggests that someone's looking into the situation; maybe event handlers will wind up being divided into generic and device-specific categories, much like logical and presentational elements/attributes in HTML. -- Chris Hoess
Re: onmousewheel=
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus W wrote: Sören Kuklau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [onmousewheel] What can I say, the news site is very MS-friendly and thus obviously likes this feature. Crap :-/ This is not crap. This will make it possible to use the wheel to scroll in DHTML scrollers, which is a quite useful feature... ...for building even more ridiculously specific web pages. This page best viewed in IE 6--with a wheelmouse! The whole process of slapping in ad hoc event handlers without regard to a device-independent framework (as with the slew of HTML4 attributes onclick, onmouseover, etc.) is rather ridiculous, and will no doubt come back to bite us in the future. Incidentally, this isn't new to the service pack; it shipped with IE6, according to MSDN. -- Chris Hoess
Re: tooltip for image-alt-value
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not very friendly Pardon? It's not very friendly to handicapped users, or those surfing with images off on dialup connections, to have alt text that's not meaningful when one can't see the picture...which is exactly what happens when people write tooltips. and not backward compatible. You say this like it's a bad thing. Seriously, backward compatibility on the web usually winds up perpetuating some horrible brokenness that no one really likes, but is too widespread to change. Alt text is one of the few things we're drawing the line on. At least, Mozilla should provide option extending image alt to title. No. We don't need clueless webmasters sticking title text in alt attributes forever. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article sTp78.83090$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bundy wrote: Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just one please. CSS and DOM support. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: In article sTp78.83090$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bundy wrote: Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just one please. CSS and DOM support. Yeah, um, no, that hover tips thingy I pointed out works on Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla. Which has what to do, again, with what I posted? -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population can view their websites properly. Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing... -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to render many of them properly. Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population can view their websites properly. Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing... Unless IE can render it. Then you're pretty much set. You must have been a real trip, selling document.layers in 1996. If Netscape can render it, you're pretty much set. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? Where is this going to end? I think that your assertion is incorrect (as other posters have stated), but let me try to provide some justification. If the increase in bug count was indicative of truly new bugs, i.e., regressions, we would indeed be in trouble. Having done QA on and off in the Layout component for over a year, the problem is mostly one of design flaws in Bugzilla, rather than the Mozilla code. To wit: 1) It is difficult to find specific bugs in Bugzilla. Whether this is a problem with the search interface, or whether we need to be somehow tagging bugs with a larger and greater variety of keywords (perhaps in a semi-automatic way), I can't exactly say; but as it stands, there's probably a reasonable percentage of duplicate bugs buried in there that no one has spotted. 2) There are a lot of ueseless bugs in Bugzilla. Component owners may file bugs as reminders to themselves to reorganize some data structure later, be sidelined by other work, and the bug may drift on through another owner or two long after the data structure is removed from the code. There are enhancements ranging from the reasonable to the utterly unlikely. There are bugs reported and confirmed a year ago on a then-current build that have never been reproduced again... Basically, I would say that while there are certainly regressions, they are being kept at a manageable level, based on what I've seen. However, given the current state of Bugzilla, I can't compile the statistics to prove it. Unfortunately, the current Bugzilla model, with default assignees and QA contacts, is a serious roadblock to fixing this problem. While this is still holding up in some of the smaller components, in large components like layout, the system has utterly collapsed. What is needed to remedy it is some significant changes in Bugzilla's concepts of state, introducing more levels of granularity between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. Bugs would drop into here until QA personnel and the bug reporter could clearly determine the cause of the problem (i.e., the margin on this td is wrong rather than this page doesn't work) and produce a consistently reproducible testcase. Only after this was done would the bugs be marked as real bugs and assigned or chosen by programmers. I believe that a system along these lines would produce bug statistics that more accurately reflected the state of the product. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonas Jørgensen wrote: JTK wrote: I don't say it too much for fear they'll get lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time. I'm confused. The headers seem slightly...odd. If this is sarcasm, it's not like JTK to be so subtle about it. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], dman84 wrote: Chris, that is where I come in. I have a project that I'd like to start after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill a tool.. that will help this problem. I need to learn the programming of the XUL XML, and probably how all the XPCOM XPAPPS, Tools Widgets stuff work.. which hopefully done right, would allow this vision I have to come to fruitation. It will greatly easy bugzilla's problem. Is this related to the Bugzapp! project I've heard of? Can you be a little more explicit? I'm curious... I would need to write specs first too. It only exists as a project idea on paper. My current time is taken to help mozilla get to the 1.0 status.. and to download/test as many nightlies as I can for my w2k box. It's good to know someone else is out there triaging ;-) I should be back in action as soon as I get CVS unhorked (bad maintainer, bad...) I used to work for a development company where I did a lot of beta testing and I have a degree in CIS. Right now I have a physically intensive labor job which pays really good, yet really wears me down.. and cuts down my time to actually learn more about mozilla. But I am looking for better.. testing code is by far easier than actually writing it and fixing it without codebase knowledge. One area I think that would be helpful, is a download file that mozilla compiles to get everything working on a certain platform, then just telling us to download this problem, write this here.. etc, just shy of distribution of pay-software programs. I just dont have to time to get a machine up and running just so I can spend forever trying to figure out how to get it compile. Admittedly, I've only ever built on a Linux box, but I get the impression that if you've installed Cygwin (which is pretty much a prerequisite for Unix-ish development on a Win32 box) and have VC++, it's not tremendously difficult to build. I do enjoy the ability with custom builds to specify optimization level (I have it cranked to -O3 at the moment), and get a build with all the trimmings of extensions, so to speak. OTOH, setting up tests is nothing to sneeze at, either. URL:http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/20020115/, the CSS3 Selectors test, URL:http://www.bath.ac.uk/~py8ieh/internet/eviltests/, URL:http://www.hixie.ch/tests/, URL:http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/css/test, URL:http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/dom/test, are all nice big test collections; I know there's a bunch of DOM stuff out there, too, such as URL:http://xw2k.sdct.itl.nist.gov/xml/page6.html. The scary part is that this still only scratches the surface of the things you can do with layout...apparently there are some broken parser tests, too, which I'd like to work on reviving when my shipment of round tuits comes in. It's probably not possible, given the current setup of Bugzilla, but it would be neat to see a standards testsuite tightly integrated with it. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Rendering problems with http://slashdot.org/ ...
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sierk Bornemann wrote: It's unbelievable for me, that this bug is filed but not fixed since nearly two years!! Perhaps you should have tried reading the bug. Had you done so, you would have found that it was fixed in late 2000, as far as anyone could tell, and someone reopened it today for what may or may not even be the same problem. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Re-writing the page, cache, 304, invalid . . .
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: Just for people wanting to switch over. what is a W3C sanctioned replacement that does the same thing as Layer? can you use the same code just subsitute the new call for the layer tags? Use the generic block or inline elements (div and span) with CSS z-index. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Standards compatible web pages?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roope Lehmuslehto wrote: Sören Kuklau wrote: Both of them are fully compliant to standards. Yes, I'm aware of that, but I need to find more pages like those, which won't work correctly on IE. :-D http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge should have some good examples. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Mozilla logo font
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Gerard wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:48:12 -0500, jesus X [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :Sören Kuklau wrote: : What's that strange Mozilla logo font? : http://www.mozillanews.org/images/icons/mozdotorg.png has it, for example. : Would like to use it for some Moz-related stuff I'm working on. :It's called Revolution. COMMIES! COMMIES EVERYWHERE! I call the rainwater and grain alcohol concession. -- Chris Hoess
Re: WebDAV
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Flodin wrote: Does Mozilla support RFC2518? No. There's a bug filed on it, but no code AFAIK. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Things what I wish (want) to see in 1.0:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sören Kuklau wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: ROT-13 is quite common for spoilers and other hidden text that people want to communicate, but not be parsed in a casual read. I see. Admittedly, it does depend on what groups one reads. But I'd hardly call it uncommon. Well, I don't consider this urgent at all. 1.1 is fine. I'd venture to disagree; I use ROT-13 about every other time I read news. 1.1 isn't _that_ far away, is it? July or so? Well, 1.0.1 needs to come first. Not to mention that milestone targeting is to be taken with a healthy helping of NaCl these days. -- Chris Hoess
Re: olympics.com
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], jon wrote: I don't have anything against the Javascript requirement though (Sorry Lynx users, this isn't the 80s anymore). I have to dissent here. Remember that: 1) Running JS is the cause of basically every browser security hole I've seen. While I don't do it all the time, I often surf with JS turned off. (I understand there's a UI bug floating around out there to have a toggle scripts button so JS could be turned on and off and will without going into the menus, which would help.) 2) The content of the NOSCRIPT tag isn't restricted to Sorry, please upgrade your browser, contrary to what you might believe from observation of the Web. If people are going to make gratuitous use of JS, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to use NOSCRIPT for accessibility purposes. Its the Windows Media and QuickTime requirements that blow my mind. And the foolishness marches on...evidently people haven't learned anything from the lawsuit after the last fiasco. -- Chris Hoess
Re: FIRE DAVE HYATT Petition Results
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lucas MacBride wrote: You know, with all this talk about firing Dave Hyatt, not one person had addressed the matter of glazing him first. Otherwise, this whole thing is just a crock. In the heat of the moment, at least give the glazing matter a mental spin for balance. Dave's urned it. Well, I noticed he's perpetually e-vase-ive about this matter... -- Chris Hoess
Re: Is Mozilla red Communist?
In article 98p18.3576$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Trolling wrote: I'm not kidding .. try this link while it's still up: http://www.mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif Well, let me take your posting record (rather than your handle) at face value and assume you're interested in reasonable dialogue. 1) This issue has been argued over here. A lot. People's reaction to the symbol tends to vary greatly. This may depend on how much they've been exposed to Communism in life; I can't say. 2) The people in charge of the logo are aware of this. They aren't changing the logo right now, because there are legal issues involving the distribution of the images under the MPL/GPL/LGPL conflicting with Mozilla's desire to retain control over the logo. 3) It has been intimated that the distribution of this logo in Mozilla packages may already have deprived mozilla.org of control over the logo. If this is so, the logo will have to be replaced once the licensing of the images has been settled. 4) The logo appears to have been formulated as, if anything, a mild parody of Communism, not a declaration of sympathy. (Imagine the reaction of a typical Marxist bureaucrat upon hearing the Open Source Revolution compared to the Communist Revolution!) -- Chris Hoess
Re: Mr. Case, tear down this wall. (was: Re: Is Mozilla red Communist?)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: In article 98p18.3576$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Trolling wrote: I'm not kidding .. try this link while it's still up: http://www.mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif Trolling: You saw the one that was literally lifted off the side of a WWII Yakovlev, right? I can't find the Mozilla commie graphics page right now after almost a second of half-looking, but here's the Yak paint scheme: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Yak1.jpg Probably used some new form of experimental Silly-Putty. For shame. A few more seconds, and you could have found the IRC logs where we pledge allegiance to the mummified corpse of Lenin. After all, a grand conspiracy to glorify the Soviet Empire is the only conceivable explanation. Well, let me take your posting record (rather than your handle) at face value and assume you're interested in reasonable dialogue. 1) This issue has been argued over here. A lot. People's reaction to the symbol tends to vary greatly. This may depend on how much they've been exposed to Communism in life; I can't say. It doesn't vary much at all actually. You have two main groups: 1. Those who are extremely offended by the blatant commie graphics and demand that they be replaced by any one of the many suitable replacements that have been offered over the years. 2. Apologists who are practiced at the art of self-deception (to put it needlessly kindly) and pitifully attempt to deny the blatant communist connections. Who am I missing? 3. The people whose strongest impressions of Communism are Yakov Smirnoff jokes, it having been 12 years since the Berlin Wall fell and 11 since the Soviet Union collapsed. Throw in the fact that the graphics are mostly tucked out of the way, and I'd venture to say that 90%+ of the people actually downloading builds haven't noticed the symbolism, or haven't realized what it is. (Especially since the hammer and sickle is considerably more recognizable in most people's minds.) Bear in mind that the community of people actually downloading Mozilla and filing bugs is a very large superset of the posters here, and the first is not necessarily reflective of the second. 2) The people in charge of the logo are aware of this. I have seen no statements to that effect, nor any indication of what any awareness they may have of the issue may at some far future date result in. Of course they can't *not* be aware of it, but if you have some non-behind-closed-doors documentation to this effect, I know many of us here would love to see it. I find your assertion hard to believe, as The Powers That Be have stated on the newsgroup that they were collecting replacement art, but weren't moving to replace the images in the builds because of the licensing issue I mentioned below. They aren't changing the logo right now, because there are legal issues involving the distribution of the images under the MPL/GPL/LGPL conflicting with Mozilla's desire to retain control over the logo. Please. Make a new friggin' logo, or take one of the myriad already offered, and put it in there. AOL has the same rights to the new one as the old one, and the same rights to the old one that it always had. Even easier, pull down the commie banner page, which serves absolutely no purpose other than to offend. Given that [EMAIL PROTECTED] have been advised by actual lawyers, I am inclined to agree with their position, that the licensing status of trademarked images in a copyleft-licensed package is unclear. Given that people who find the red star and Constructivist art offensive will still be offended by the logos in About Mozilla, etc., I'm not sure I see the advantage of tossing the art out piece by piece, especially since http://www.mozilla.org/banners/ is not at all well-publicized. 3) It has been intimated that the distribution of this logo in Mozilla packages may already have deprived mozilla.org of control over the logo. And we go from Red Communism to Red Herring. AOL has complete control over what graphics are and are not part of the Mozilla distribution. What some hypothetical third party might do with the commie art has at no time concerned anybody here. Irrelevant, since I introduced this particular fact in order to explain my next sentence. If this is so, the logo will have to be replaced once the licensing of the images has been settled. Ok, I'll bite even though that's completely spurious: Is there any commitment from the Powers that Be to do so at that time? Is there any indication whatsoever that they will? Again, I have seen nothing to that effect. Perhaps reading over the archives of this newsgroup would help. If you're asserting that mozilla.org would continue to use as its official logo an image which it could not prevent from being misappropriated, I think people will disagree with you. 4) The logo appears
Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional Code and CSS
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jens Hatlak wrote: BTW: Has anyone contacted the Apache team telling them to add the text/css MIME type to the mime.types file by default? Or wouldn't that be so smart? Uh, my mime.types file in Apache 1.3.22 does have text/css set up by default. I'm surprised people are having problems with Apache; text/css has been registered with IANA since March '98, and Apache seems to do a good job of keeping up now, although I notice an item in the 1.3.15 changelog suggesting that they'd been lagging and did a major update of mime.types at that time (2000-10-19). -- Chris Hoess
Re: FIRE DAVE HYATT Petition Results
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Blake Ross wrote: 76% of respondents wanted Dave Hyatt to be fired. 21% of respondents wanted a more severe punishment. - of these, 12% considered a lifetime of coding in only XBL as adequate retribution. Huh? But I thought the plan was to back out XBL completely! That's what bug 50349 is all about, and I thought it was going to happen soon, since the bug is assigned to... oh. nevermindforgetaboutitthen. Nooo! XBL kills babies! It must be stopped! Won't somebody think of the chiildren? -- Chris Hoess (and sballard needs Hyatt for those link events, too...)
Re: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Rued wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: to *triple*-check Marketing's expense accounts. Procurement: It seems the Sun currently has a monopoly on free light, and its reliability has been called into question regularly. Service during supposedly up times is also subject to random interruption by things called clouds. Can Finance release financial resource for the procurement of pay-per-minute lighting? Legal: We have just been ordered to stop producing light, as Microsoft has reverse-engineered our light, and patented ActiveLight. This light frequently goes out for no apparent reason, and will not work with the existing light available. If you would like to use ActiveLight, it will only be available for Windows XP. Also note: this product will not be supported six months from now. For additional support you must upgrade to the latest version of ActiveLight, which was reimplemented using .NET technology, LightXP. Custodial Services: Will people please stop leaving the light on all night when they go home? It wastes electricity. -- Chris Hoess
Re: fileinput click() rfe?
In article a1rmd0$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sören Kuklau wrote: jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Mozilla gives the developer no control over it at all. It shouldn't. The reason most sites look horrible in Netscape 4.x these days is because developers were not given the power the IE gave them, so they stopped developing for it. Probably because someone was afraid a feature would annoy some nit-picker *cough*. If you call strict standards _non_-compliance power... Actually, Netscape 4 is from mid-97, so you can hardly compare it with a recent IE. I should also point out that one of the features in Mozilla that seems to please people the most is being able to block popups, window.opens, etc.--in other words, allowing the *user* to combat stupid designer tricks of this sort. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Alert Warning While Inseting Image
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yeh You-Ying wrote: Hello, While composing with HTML format, if I insert image without fill in Alternative Text, An alert warning pops up. Is is possible to provide a way to disable this warning message in the future release ? From the HTML 4.01 DTD: alt %Text; #REQUIRED --short description-- For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets... I suspect this is why the alert is there (attribute is required). Note that from HTML4, Do not specify irrelevant alternate text when including images intended to format a page...In such cases, the alternate text should be the empty string (). -- Chris Hoess
Re: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Gerard wrote: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:24:57 +, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : :Customer Requirements Document : :-- : :After consultation, we have discovered that customers prefer darkness, : :for energy and cost-saving reasons. This program is therefore entirely : :unnecessary. : Marketing: we need a big push for customers to prefer light, so we can sell : them something. :Engineering: we are currently overloaded providing darkness; there's no :way we can provide light as well. Suggest marketing attempt to sell more :darkness, as it's a zero-cost resource. Accounting: See if we can get some third-party light in here, so we can see to *triple*-check Marketing's expense accounts. Industry Pundit: This is all irrelevant, because light will be replaced by gamma rays within the next few years. Your company is doomed. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Mozilla? Cough! Choke! (was Re: IE or Netscape?)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Martel wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:37:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MOTAR the imperious) wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 19:49:55 -0700, Dave Martel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PC version appeared to be a data collection tool. Perhaps the FreeBSD version is culmination of all the Windows user's syphoned feedback? Perhaps, but since Mozilla is open-source you shouldn't have any trouble proving your case by showing us the code snippets that form this data-collection tool. The full source is on ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub. You work off the assumption MOTAR said their software was doing secretive data collection. MOTAR never said that. MOTAR said the program connects back to the Netscape/AOL servers which use ordinary web scripts. Passive continuous data collection from AOL is more annoying to MOTAR than aggressive obvious data collection from many other sources. I just wanted to get things real clear before asking the good folks in netscape.public.mozilla.general to confirm this supposed spying. How say you, Mozilla users? Is Mozilla being used by AOL to spy on you? I highly doubt it. A quick review of issues discussed earlier in this thread in a.p.s: 1) Mozilla = Netscape = AOL Well, sort of yes and sort of no. Realistically, Netscape will always have serious clout in what goes on in Mozilla as long as they supply the bulk of the development effort, whether the server is hosted by Netscape or a kiwi plantation in New Zealand. In practice, I think it's highly unlikely that be able to suck useful marketing data off mozilla.org servers without one of the independent mozilla.org higher-ups noticing; furthermore, I don't consider it proven that such data exists. 2) Mozilla loads the red star images from a mozilla.org server. This has to do (AFAIK) with trying to avoid shipping the images as part of the MPL-licensed packages, for some complex licensing reasons (retaining trademark on the logo or something). Unfortunately, the Opera evangelist you're following up to didn't provide details beyond that, so I don't know what other parts of the Mozilla site it's supposedly trying to contact, although I'd be happy to check it out with more details. One issue that you *should* be aware of is the What's Related bar in the Sidebar. There was a longstanding issue where this bar contacted Alexa even with the sidebar closed, which has thankfully been fixed. (See bug 53239). There's also a pref for this somewhere, but somewhat broken; see bug 78821. Given that Alexa seems to be a privacy gray-hat, I'm not terribly thrilled that Mozilla ships with this, but it is removable. You could also look at bug 71270, which has been hotly debated. Basically, code exists in the Mozilla tree providing an extra hook intended for a *legitimate* tracking application. People have argued that it should come out because it can be exploited by other spyware; OTOH, I'd counter that: 1) If you download another piece of spyware onto your machine, it can (well, on a Win9x machine, anyway) do whatever it pleases in terms of scooping up your data. 2) The security provided by *not* having this code is entirely accidental, due to the decision not to use native widgets for Mozilla. All other browsers using native widgets (IE, NS 4.x, Opera) are just as vulnerable to 3rd-party spyware. The only other issue I can think of is talkback data; if you download a talkback-enabled build, it will send data back to Mozilla if the browser crashes. IIRC, by the nature of talkback (basically a memory snapshot at the time of the crash), you're inherently running the risk of sending sensitive data off, although access to the talkback data is limited. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Microsoft Q A
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Thomas wrote: overflow ellipses (6.0), ...which are undoubtedly useful. No offense, but was there too much rum in your fruitcake or something? I honestly don't see what purpose overflow ellipses serve, except perhaps to conceal a bug (or more charitably, a widespread misuse) of overflowing. To return to your more general point, Why would Microsoft implement a feature if their customers didn't want it?, I can think of several reasons. 1) To conceal a misfeature. (One possible interpretation of the above, although I could certainly be wrong.) 2) Arrogance. If you assume that MS employees are basically well-meaning, goodhearted people who happen to believe that they and their co-workers are smarter than anyone else in the industry, it explains a great deal of what they do. 3) Strategy. If a feature helps leverage their dominance of the browser market to dominating another area, they're quire likely to implement it. However, in each case, they've submitted the new feature to the W3C for inclusion in the next version of the relevant standard. That only causes lock-in for as long as it takes competing browsers to get around to implementing it. Assuming the W3C finds it worthy. Submission != acceptance. Netscape did the same thing in the 1.0 to 4.0 era, with FONT, BLINK, FRAMESET, MULTICOL, and so on. Perhaps the only reason they haven't done it since 4.0 is that they've been too busy playing catch-up -- first trying to implement new features in a rendering engine that allegedly wasn't capable of it, and then writing a new rendering engine from scratch. Perhaps. OTOH, the W3C is now churning out recommendations at a ferocious clip; for the most part, the recs are ahead of browser capabilities. (The two main exceptions I can think of are XML+CSS for UI, which has been approached in rather different directions by BeCSS and XUL, and the CSSOM.) Let me also point out that the browser-introduced features you've mentioned are at best poorly designed and at worst positively harmful. The W3C is hardly a font of perfect standards, but I'd like to think that running such features through the standards process ultimately provides the best for consumers. For that matter, I'd hope that major alterations to a piece of Internet architecture (like adding multimedia in HTML) would be subject to relatively evenhanded peer review. (See point 2 above for why I don't consider intracorporate review acceptable for this.) Supporting open standards works against that goal. If there's such a groundswell that they're _forced_ to, only then will they support open standards. Um, duh, that's what `implementing the Internet standards that make sense to allow our customers to build great solutions' *means*. If their customers start a groundswell, saying `hey, we want full CSS2 support to build great solutions', Microsoft will implement it. Supply and demand, y'know. There is no financial benefit for them to implement something if nobody wants it. (Note that `somebody' might be another group within Microsoft.) It's hardly impossible to convince people that they want something they didn't realize existed before you told them; it's the basis for a great deal of advertising. For that matter, how did these features get into the CSS2 recommendation if no one wants them? Even then, they'll try to corrupt the open standards, with proprietary extensions. ... Do you have any examples, or are you just trolling? (Kerberos doesn't count; this is the Web we're talking about.) Perhaps corrupt is too strong a term, but the fact that they still haven't found out about the -vendor- prefix in CSS for things like filters, etc. would be a start. -- Chris Hoess
Re: It's December 14th again!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christian Biesinger wrote: JTK wrote: Pratik wrote: The HTTP headers from cnn.com say HTTP/1.1 200 OKCRLF Server: Netscape-Enterprise/4.1CRLF Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:28:30 GMTCRLF Last-modified: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:28:31 GMTCRLF Expires: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:29:31 GMTCRLF Cache-control: private,max-age=60CRLF Content-type: text/htmlCRLF Connection: closeCRLF Let me make a WAG: it's the CR/LF line ends. I do not think so. Actually, the RFC for HTTP (RFC 2616) explicitly mentions that HTTP does use CRLF for the line endings. Maybe it's the max-age=60, but I don't know which unit the 60 is in (hours? days? minutes?) No, that's legit. max-age is always in units of delta-seconds (i.e., 60 s after being received). I.e., the browser should check CNN.com for an update every minute. -- Chris Hoess
Re: It's December 14th again!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Pratik wrote: Nope. Thats just the way websniffer displays it (http://webtools.mozilla.org/web-sniffer/). Thats not the fault. Is the cache and specifically the headers written thereto plaintext? If so, I upgrade my WAG to a WAH (wild-ass hypothesis). CR-LF's are the standard line-end in HTTP transactions and omitting one or the otherwould in fact be considered a violation of the standards (although we probably play ball with that). They're quite widespread. Incidentally, are you running any filters on Proxomitron? There was one bug filed by someone experiencing problems similar to yours, but the reporter wasn't able to reproduce it on other machines, and it went away after a cold install (of Mozilla? Proxomitron?). See bug 100075 for details. -- Chris Hoess
Re: It's December 14th again!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Pratik wrote: Nope. Thats just the way websniffer displays it (http://webtools.mozilla.org/web-sniffer/). Thats not the fault. Is the cache and specifically the headers written thereto plaintext? If so, I upgrade my WAG to a WAH (wild-ass hypothesis). CR-LF's are the standard line-end in HTTP transactions and omitting one or the otherwould in fact be considered a violation of the standards (although we probably play ball with that). They're quite widespread. [snipped description of the usual CR vs CRLF interoperability problem, etc.] So, my WAT (wild-ass theory now) is that the letter b will solve this problem. Before you go promoting this again, your interpretation is tangential to my point. The reason I mentioned the standard is that, AFAIK, all servers (except perhaps for a very few broken ones) transmit CRLF in headers. If there was really a problem with some piece of the cache garbling CRLF, wouldn't this problem affect far more sites? Incidentally, are you running any filters on Proxomitron? Sure, isn't that kinda the idea? ;-) I'm not at all familiar with the program, I just asked because this triggered the bug I mentioned below. I also recall a Mac program of this nature that doesn't work well with us because it snips out offending tags directly from the data stream (!) and this throws off the timers and makes the parser sulk, or something bizarre. There was one bug filed by someone experiencing problems similar to yours, but the reporter wasn't able to reproduce it on other machines, and it went away after a cold install (of Mozilla? Proxomitron?). See bug 100075 for details. Well again, I run IE through the same exact Proxomitron, and view the exact same CNN, and get two different behaviors. Either two programs are broken in such a way that the errors cancel each other out, or one program has a broken cache. Well, it's the fact that you're only seeing this on CNN that throws me; I'd think other sites would be sending very similar caching HTTP headers. -- Chris Hoess
Re: phpGroupWare and Mozilla
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jean-Eric Cuendet wrote: All that can be shared between members and is accessible through WEB or XMLRPC. An XMLRPC plugin for Mozilla would be very cool IMHO. Any plan? Someone already working on that? I believe that XMLRPC is part of the XML Extras extension to Mozilla URL:http://www.mozilla.org/xmlextras/. -- Chris Hoess
Re: What is MachV to Mozilla/Netscape???
In article 9vqh2h$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sören Kuklau wrote: I have to disagree about the unfortunately part. Have you looked at those MachV notes? Download Manager, for instance? Sounds pretty cool to me. [TOFU quoting snipped] Unfortunately, features do not spring from programmer's heads fully-debugged and stable. -- Chris Hoess
Re: What is MachV to Mozilla/Netscape???
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrea Monni wrote: Chris Hoess wrote: In article 9vqh2h$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sören Kuklau wrote: I have to disagree about the unfortunately part. Have you looked at those MachV notes? Download Manager, for instance? Sounds pretty cool to me. [TOFU quoting snipped] Unfortunately, features do not spring from programmer's heads fully-debugged and stable. And so what? If we all reasonate like that there would never be anything new since everthing might be buggy. For everything there is a season, A time to check in and a time not to check in... I'm not opposed to the MachV features per se, and in fact there are many more things I'd like to see become part of Mozilla, but adding all-new features now is getting very close to the wire in terms of making them stable, functional, and usable for Mozilla 1.0. Now, after 1.0 branches, I'm all for a wild scramble to check in cool new stuff so people can start testing it, but we should be close to feature-complete for 1.0 by now. -- Chris Hoess
Re: It's December 14th again!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK wrote: Bradley Baetz wrote: So, noone else is seeing this. Nobody else is admitting that they see this. If you really think that there's a conspiracy by Mozilla/AOL-TW/the Trilateral Commission to suppress all the failed smoketests that this bug would cause, and all the reports from the community of relatively disinterested bug reporters (e.g., those not involved in the Mozilla community and presumably not blindly pro-Mozilla or however you care to designate us), I would respectfully suggest lithium. That a smoketest blocker on one of the more popular and frequently accessed websites on the WWW would go completely unnoticed by anyone is, quite frankly, an extraordinary claim, and requires commensurate proof. If you go to advanced-cache in your prefs, what are the cache settings? It should be set to automatically. As I replied to Pratik below, it's set to when out of date. Four-day-old CNN should qualify I'd think. The closest I could find was bug 78551, but I don't think that would apply, unless you've had your browser instance open for four days. Does this occur with other pages? How long have you been experiencing these problems? How recent is the build? -- Chris Hoess
Re: What is MachV to Mozilla/Netscape???
In article 9vl90q$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sören Kuklau wrote: Probably then one which is recent around one and a half months before the release. (ex.: Netscape 6.5 / MachV gets released in April = Mozilla 0.9.8 was released in February = Netscape 6.5 is based on open-source-only-release Mozilla 0.9.8.1, whereas Mozilla 1.0.0 is nearly out that time - note that this is an example. i would prefer Netscape to release the 6.5 version after Mozilla 1.0.0 is finished, so it'll be a real solid thing.) It's my impression that 6.5 will be based on 1.0. There might be a 6.3 release off of 0.9.8, but I suspect most of the usual branch-stabilizing work will be occurring on the trunk at that time, and there's little reason to release another version before 6.5. -- Chris Hoess
Re: images with width of zero in tables
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], DeMoN LaG wrote: Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 13 Dec 2001: No! Transparent 1x1 gif thingies is a very bad thing. Use CSS instead. I saw a web site that brought IE, Mozilla, and Netscape 4.x (even Opera 5) to their knees once. For a green background, they made a 1x1 gif that was green and set it to tile (ie, 1x1 across the whole page). Scrolling down one page took about 15 seconds... 1x1 gifs are a bad thing Someone recently filed a bug complaining about a stack overflow on a large table and hanging; said table turned out to be a rather large pointilistic image using table cells. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Stealing Netscape's favicon
In article 9t9rs8$[EMAIL PROTECTED], flynn wrote: Look who's pinched Netscapes favicon logo http://www.cia.gov/ Hardly pinched; as far as I can tell, NS Enterprise Server automatically sets up the NS logo as a favicon, hence its presence on numerous sites otherwise unrelated to NS. -- Chris Hoess
Re: favicon
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], LemNet.com Support wrote: Hmm, interesting. If that is the case then its a strange thing for Netscape to do. It makes the customers sites look worse and doesn't give them much of an advantage. Are you sure these sites are actually running a Netscape server? The CNN site is part of the netscape.com network, so the icon is correct there though. Don't know about those, but timeless and I checked out 2 or 3 sites that were doing that the other night, and they were all running NS Enterprise Server. You can use Netcraft to look up the server type of any given website... Amusing, isn't it, that until hyatt's changes, those would be seen only by users of IE (well, and Konqueror)? (No doubt intentional.) -- Chris Hoess
Re: Mozilla or KDE-browser(Konqueror)?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roland wrote: Hello, if I wanted to join a browser programming team now, where should I go? To Mozilla.org or KDE(Konqueror), or maybe another open source browser? Sometimes I think I would like to contribute but I don't know if I will have the time. This is a good question. The biggest problem with joining the project, at present, is that there is very little written documentation, of code or otherwise. Most people learn by looking at patches for bugs in the area they're interested in, or talking with the developers on IRC :-) However, Mozilla also has a strong QA component; triaging bugs on Bugzilla, developing testcases, etc., is an important part of the project and an easy way for people to get started. As far as a direct Konqueror-to-Mozilla comparison, it's really a battle of the two rendering engines (KHTML vs Gecko), since both can actually be used in Konqueror, I believe. Gecko has (as far as I know) a bigger footprint/takes more memory than KHTML, but it also has incredible standards support. (Take a look at what KHTML does to http://www.alistapart.com/, for instance). I think Gecko is more exciting because there's work being done to support things that other browsers Just Don't Do, like DOM 2 Traversal Range, and other nifty features. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Watch out SourceForge!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roland wrote: Hello, I've read in Slashdot.org that sourceforge is trying to lock in users into proprietary software...just a warning. But mozilla.org doesn't use sourceforge anymore does it? I think Sourceforge hosts Mozilla's CVS, but the project has never (to my knowledge) been completely hosted on Sourceforge. Tangentially, in the Slashdot story, I saw someone commenting that they'd decided not to go with Sourceforge because Bugzilla had more features they needed...interesting. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Help with Netscape 6 themes edit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Malodushnikh wrote: No, that's an incorrect opinion by some very misled engineers who, for some reason, believe that all files are faster when they're stored as JAR files. Huh? AFAIK, the reason we use jars is to cut down on footprint, which seriously increases using uncompressed chrome. The fastload changes may have affected apparent loading speed and won back some of the time needed to uncompress-on-the-fly, but I'm not sure. -- Chris Hoess
Re: HTML 3.2 Bugs?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Malodushnïkh wrote: Is Bug 1882 the only HTML 3.2-compliance bug there is? Do we need a keyword for these? http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1882 We don't really need such a keyword. It's more useful to track HTML4 bugs. There may be one or two other bugs on elements dropped between the specifications (ISTR one on ISINDEX), but for the most part, HTML4 has everything that gets used. -- Chris Hoess
Re: But k-Meleon 0.5 works on MSN!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JP White wrote: Nigel L wrote: Looks horrid, though! That makes the problem even worse. Instead of only allowing 'validated' browses onto their site which would ensure quality, they are obviously targeting browses they 'don't like' or 'don't trust' and are not consistent in ensuring that we all have a 'great experience' at MSN I'm actually beginning to think that Hanlon's (Heinlein's?) Razor applies here; I've gotten the upgrade your browser message trying to access MSN with IE 5.5 (and it's been reported to me that IE 4.x is allowed on it). It seems quite likely that the web developers don't know good code from their own elbows... -- Chris Hoess
Re: msn , coincidence?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pratik wrote: Yes that was really good. btw, I just tried validating www.mozilla.org and it complains about not finding doctype and charset. Once you override it, it passes without any error. Can someone fix the doctype and charset on www.mozilla.org? (or is it intentionally left out) It shouldn't be that hard to add. I filed a bug against Endico on this several months ago, and nothing has happened. -- Chris Hoess
Re: But k-Meleon 0.5 works on MSN!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hall Stevenson wrote: * Chris Hoess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011026 20:10]: I'm actually beginning to think that Hanlon's (Heinlein's?) Razor applies here; I've gotten the upgrade your browser message trying to access MSN with IE 5.5 (and it's been reported to me that IE 4.x is allowed on it). It seems quite likely that the web developers don't know good code from their own elbows... I use IE 5.5 at work. My wife uses it at home. Neither machine has had any problems accessing the site... It may have something to do with the patch level, I'm guessing. -- Chris Hoess
Re: My site is not working in Netscape! Why!? Anyone know?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Gerard wrote: Bugzilla! Is there *anything* it can't do? URL:http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59921 is a fine example of some of its more unusual tasks. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Little glitch in Mozilla milestone 0.9.5 mail-news composition window
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Al Smith wrote: Just throught I'd mention it, in case anyone else having the same problem was wondering if it is just them. Sometimes when I select and delete a portion of a quoted message in my composition window in Mail-News, I get a blank space where other text is lost. Scrolling up and down doesn't refresh the window -- I have to minimize the window, then restore it, and this returns the mysteriously vanished text, and I can finish writing my post and send it off with no other problem. Sounds like bug 97674. Fixed on the trunk, but it didn't make it for the 0.9.5 branch. -- Chris Hoess
Re: DIV: Re: Changed or removed old interfaces in Mozilla 9.3 XPCOM source
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: porkjockeys? I've heard of Pork Skins. The name originates, IIRC, from a comment that some architecture change would happen when pigs fly. -- Chris Hoess
Re: ** Formular Check : NS Browser ignores the Check ! **
In article 9pl1ka$jt7$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Werner Hofer wrote:
Hallo zusammen
Hello
i use a formualr check routine. It works fine with MSIE, but the
Netscape Browser ignores the check routine. It means, if one
will one give in data into the fields, then it must not send the formular
th the webserver. But Netscape will send it anyway
What do i wrong ? Must i specify any additional arguments or parameters ?
If yes, which ones ?
Thanks a lot for your help in advance !
Best regards
Werner Hofer
It follows a part of the check routine :
*Javascript Check Routine *
script language=Javascript
function check_formular() {
if (document.form_mitt.name.value ==) {
alert(Tragen Sie bitte Ihren Namen ein !);
document.form_mitt.name.focus();
return false;
}
if (document.form_mitt.tel.value ==) {
alert(Geben Sie bitte Ihre Telefon-Nummer ein !);
document.form_mitt.tel.focus();
return false;
}
return true;
} // end function
Vielleicht sollen sie diese Formularen von if (document.(usw).value ==)
zu if (!document.(usw).value) andern?
--
Chris Hoess
Re: your RAND comments
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Hickson wrote: 2. The proposal would guarentee that all standards are available to everyone in the form of Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licenses, i.e. free software groups would not be excluded (assuming they can pool together resources to afford the license). There is currently NO guarentee of this kind. I cannot see how this could work for free software projects if someone demands a per-unit royalty (as permitted under the new proposal). Wouldn't such a license be considered discriminatory? I think this is really the central point of the dispute; reasonable and non-discriminatory is a very vague way of putting it. Realistically, I think most of the people would be satisfied if the document contained explicit language safeguarding free software/open source. Unfortunately, the W3C is, well, an industry consortium, and I don't think that most people trust it to stand up and consider such licenses discriminatory if push came to shove. -- Chris Hoess
Re: why AOL wont use MOZ: The problem and the solution
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], jesus X wrote: Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: How about the INIT command. I'm trying to remember from my Windows 3.1.1. days. As I have said, there is no INIT command. And most Win32 platform programs use version numbers in the single decimal style. It was windows 3.1, 3.11, etc. With win 95 they started versioning like so: Win95 4.00.950, Win95 OSR2 4.00., Win98 was 4.10.1998, Win98SE was 4.10., etc. 3.111, IIRC, was also known as Windows for Workgroups. Ah, memories of the IS helpline... -- Chris Hoess
Re: problem with cgi and Mozilla 0.94
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Gehrig wrote: Hi I build a cgi-Script which builds some intranetsites automaticlly. When i want to open this site with the IE 6.0 or Opera ( WIN and Linux ) it shwos the right site. But when i want to open the site with mozilla 0.94 (Linux) i get the file (this files includes the right html-source ) code for download. What to do? Check your HTTP headers? Perhaps you're sending the wrong Content-Disposition or Content-Type. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Mozilla GPG status ?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham wrote: dcr wrote: Does someone know if there is development progress about integration of mozilla messenger and GPG (GnuPG). I'm in particular very interested by digital signature for emails. Perhaps some contributions to mozilla code has started ? There is a PGP plugin patch but it was not accepted because Mozilla does not yet support a plugin architecture for mail send. This can also be done using Protozilla: http://protozilla.mozdev.org . Protozilla is being integrated into the main Mozilla codebase; right now, it looks like it needs testing/fixing on the Mac (see bug 68702 for the patch). -- Chris Hoess
Re: IE6.0 Released
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], dman84 wrote: Mozilla doesn't show it is transfering any data after switching to another one. should it? Either the data transfer is very fast (stylesheets are small), or the stylesheet loader downloads all the stylesheets (both preferred and alternate) for a page on first load. -- Chris Hoess
Re: IE6.0 Released
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Pierre Chanial wrote: They claim IE6 has a full CSS Level1 and DOM1 support. Is it that right? Define full. Support almost, but not entirely, unlike standards compliance? ;-) It's better, certainly, but...URL:http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html Compare in IE and Moz. Share and Enjoy. -- Chris Hoess
Re: View Source and Shorttag
In article 9obmhv$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Garth Wallace wrote: Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Perhaps I need to clarify: The document http://css.nu/temp/valid-test1.html is written in HTML 4.01 Strict and validates. Problem #1: It will not display with Mozilla due to SGML Shorttag usage, although it is legal and validates (only Opera displays something, although not properly). Does it validate with the W3C's HTML validator, or with an SGML validator using the HTML 4.01 doctype? HTML doesn't have some SGML features--the SGML spec isn't entirely normative for HTML. Heh. Referring to SGML as a Normative Reference for HTML 4.01 did *not* make the SGML people happy. There's some bugs filed on these SGML features in Bugzilla, and I think a non-NS contributor is working on them at present. HTML has never supported the / notation to my knowledge. Same with that P/This page validates as/P thing (are you missing a there?) This all looks like legitimate SGML syntax using tag minimization. See bugs 47522 and 94284 for examples of some parser changes that will make at least some of this work. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Security Concerns in Mozilla
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Lairo wrote: Greediy companies are not interested in formatting your hard drive or to whom you are sending jucy love leters - there is no profit in that. There IS, however, a large profit in having a *detailed analysis* of peoples browsing habbits. Hence, there IS motivation to ascertain the URLs from Mozilla in sneaky and unethical ways. Except that the address book, and the information in it tying together email addresses, street addresses, names, and various other personal data seems like it would be just as useful a thing to snatch for marketing. Shall we remove the address book, too? It's clearly a significant privacy risk... [Hint: the problem is running *any program that isn't trustworthy*. If you're that paranoid about your privacy, *take the extra time to ensure the programs you install are reliable*, install a firewall, and various other measures. Don't come crying here about some vast spyware conspiracy.] -- Chris Hoess
Re: Security Concerns in Mozilla
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jacek Piskozub wrote: You can avoid writing such details in addressbook (actually I think most people never bothers). You cannot avoid opening URLs if you want to see the Web pages. Good point. But the spyware can still slurp up the profiles directory and use that, yes? The information from a history may not be quite as useful and a bit more difficult to extract, but that can all be handled server-side. So there is a workaround for the address book problem but not for the spyware problem. I assume you meant URL bar problem, but you're more right than you think. ;) Frankly, this is starting to remind me of the periodic c.i.w.a.h discussions of Can I keep people from seeing my source, wherein people use progressively more clever and obfuscated Javascript and other solutions to try to work around a basic principle: data that you send to a client will be available to the client-you can't *make* it be processed. This strikes me as doing the same thing: people are insisting that the hidden widget be removed so that evil malicious software running on their computers can't snarf the URLs they're browsing to. Again, you're trying to prevent some programming running as root (I assume we're in a Win 9.x environment here) from getting data it wants in the system. Making Mozilla cleverer at hiding data is pretty clearly a stopgap solution; the solution is installing a personal firewall to keep the evil malicious software from sending back data. All removing the widget will do is give people a false sense of security. -- Chris Hoess
Re: compatibility
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gordon Bennett wrote: Good, but not good enough. My bank, for example, uses Javascript and looks at navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion. I tried patching the source, but then my bank's non-standard Javascript just fails somewhere else. I'm going to give my bank a month or so, now that Netscape 6.1 is released, then change banks if they won't support it. You can also go to Bugzilla and file a bug on the Browser, Evangelism component, reporting that the site refuses to support Mozilla. The Evangelism team will write them and help them diagnose their problems. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Buggy HTML and Mozilla's Ability to Handle It.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Bergsagel wrote: I have a limited knowledge of HTML. As I navigate to many web sites, even I notice sloppy html coding. I know that Mozilla handles HTML 4.01 and through the quirks modes Netscape 4.0. Is this enough. Does Mozilla need one more mode that allows for many cases of coding I will simply call sloppy. No. Can Mozilla be tweeked to deal better with sites that forget to close end tags for example. Here is what I am really getting at: many sites contain sloppy code and are tested only with IE and if it passes no corrections are made to correct the sloppy coding. Since Microsoft IE will render many pages with sloppy coding, shouldn't Mozilla have a mode for sloppy coding. If Mozilla doesn't have such a mode will there be many sites Mozilla is shut out of? OK. Quirks mode, the mode which Mozilla uses to render HTML which it believes to be written in a non-standards-compliant way (based on DOCTYPE), is not a Netscape 4.0 compliance mode: it renders common HTML coding mistakes in general in the way that authors intended. So a new feature to handle bad code shouldn't go into Quirks mode unless it turns out that a lot of pages break badly without it. There are several reasons we're not interesting in producing a quirks mode that reproduces all the bugs in IE and NS 4.x: 1) We'll forever be playing catch-up trying to mimic all the bugs in IE. 2) It encourages people to keep writing pages in Quirks mode forever; if people's broken code always works in Quirks mode, there's no incentive to write proper HTML. If you find a page that breaks in Mozilla because of bad HTML on the page, file a bug; if we don't want to deal with the particular HTML error that causes the breakage, the bug will get sent to Evangelism, who will notify the site owner that their page is broken and help them correct it. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Hyper about Hypertext?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn wrote: Someone's not paying attention. HTTP = Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Hypertext Transfer Protocal would come out as HTP. If anyone, it's Tim Berners-Lee; all RFC's ever published use both the acronym HTTP and the expansion Hypertext Transfer Protocol. While acronyms usually use the initial letters of each word in a phrase, this is not always the case. -- Chris Hoess
Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org (was: wow)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henno Buschmann wrote: Hallo, Laurent Granger wrote: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mozilla.orgdoctype=Inline yes, its really poor. A Browser community doesn't care on valid HTML. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mozilla.org%2Fdoctype= HTML+4.01+Transitional (URL wrapped) Notice the new selection list for doctypes at the validator; you need to use this when checking a page that doesn't have an HTML doctype inline. When this is done, the list of errors is reduced to an un-entity-fied ampersand. I thought that they are forward-looking and use XHTML, but its a bad disappointment. I believe one of the people at Zope is working on a new setup for the page; keep an eye on n.p.m.documentation. -- Chris Hoess
Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Asa Dotzler wrote: We should definitely tell anyone interested in contributing documentation to mozilla.org which will help people get involved with coding and testing that we don't want it because it's not perfectly standards compliant. Yeah, that's a great way to help this project. Just what it needs. Fewer docs are sure to make it easier for folks to get involved. Whatever. Asa, the invalid HTML in question was on the front page, which (IMO) should be running at a somewhat higher standard than user-contributed docs. Bug 89885 filed; if nothing is fixed by the time the new site layout arrives, I'll go back and kill it. -- Chris Hoess
