Re: .9.9 contains bug# 125290 from .9.8
Peter Stein wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pratik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 03/25/2002 06:17 PM, Peter Stein wrote: Has anyone taken a look? Does anyone care? I just did. And I can't reproduce it. Try deleting your XUL.mfasl file. try it with XUL disabled/enabled (Edit-Prefs-Debug-Networking), not to mention try a new profile. I've already tried deleting the XUL.mfasl file. No effect. I haven't seen anyone but you mention this problem. My guess is the fault is at your end, not in Mozilla. Possible, but unlikely. I run lots of apps under Linux and this is only the 2nd to exhibit this problem (Netscape 6.x was the first). If indeed it is a problem at my end then I would humbly suggest that Mozilla is a tad sensitive. And other folks have mentioned this problem. I saw posts when I first reported it for .9.8 and today when getting caught up in this newsgroup saw subjects like can't enter text. Try deleting localstore.rdf as well. That's one of the things I always do if I'm having problems and want to refresh the UI. If you've tried lots of Mozilla versions and/or are sharing a profile between Mozilla Netscape 6 then upgrades can sometimes cause these problems, especially if you use a nightly which might potentially corrupt a file. I've not had this problem at all using the Mandrake packaged rpms, but I don't have Netscape 6 on my system. ian.
Re: Whoops! Gecko, not Moz.
Garth Wallace wrote: Glenn Miller wrote: On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows: The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the 0.9.9 Gecko engine. I didn't know that there was a 14th month! Why not use the standard date of day/month/year - instead of some cockeyed arrangement with the day after the month but before the year. Standard date of day/month/year? Huh? Are you British? Least significant to most significant, or most significant to least significant does seem to be pretty much a standard. I've never really understood the logic behind the US format. It's not as you do mm:ss:hh or mm:hh:ss for time. Just one of those quirks of history I guess. ian.
Re: Can't download .9.9 due to server bogged down? - alternativefast idea via mirror
Netscape Basher wrote: ftp://sunsite.ualberta.ca/pub/Mirror/mozilla/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.9/ I suggest the mozilla-win32-installer-sea.exe download because if you download mozilla-win32-installer.exe, it will attempt to download the rest from ftp.mozilla.org which current is being pounded by request, probably by microsoft.com people trying to bog down the server. :) Do you bash Netscape with your forehead or something? You still seem determined to download a nightly development build rather than the latest release, you actually want to go here: ftp://sunsite.ualberta.ca/pub/Mirror/mozilla/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.9/ And choose which packaged version of 0.9.9 you want to download. ian.
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
Alex Farran wrote: Hi, The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts! Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under: c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc and add: 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net into it. ian.
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
michael lefevre wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Davey wrote: Alex Farran wrote: Hi, The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts! Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under: c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc and add: 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net into it. err... that's not going to help by itself. that gives the same effect as the actions of his admins. with that hosts file, mozilla will look for the doubleclick server at 127.0.0.1, and, unless you have a web server running on your machine, you'll get a popup telling you it couldn't reach the server. That's strange, it has always worked for me and I don't have a web server running on my machine (NT4). It should always reach that server anyway, as it just points straight at the local machine. I used to use the same technique with Netscape 1 on Win3.1 and it worked just as well... I don't get any error popups. ian.
Re: Netscape 6.2.1 (and Mozilla) file save cache question
Chris wrote: I was hoping somebody can help me solve this problem I've been having with Netscape and Mozilla. My setup: Windows 2000 root partition (c: drive) about 200 megs free of a 2 gig partition File server, z: drive about 40 gigs free I went to download Oracle 9i (about 1.1 gigs) today and used the Save as... dialog to save it to my file server (z drive, 40 gigs free). Neither netscape 6.2.1, Mozilla or I.E. could download it because they all download it temporarily to a cache directory (located in my profiles directory on my c: drive with only 200 megs free) before copying it over to my file server. Right click on the link and choose Save Link As... instead of just clicking. ian.
Re: Speed and size
JTK wrote: Wordstar used to fly on old hardware too. Win 3.11 ran very well in a 486 environment with 4megs yet Win 95 replaced it despite the fact it required a Pentium class CPU and at least 16 megs of RAM. Win95 was a hell of a lot better than Win3.11. Mozilla is a hell of a lot *worse* than NC4.7x and IE. Trolling again? There's no way its worse than NC4.7, and it's nicer than any version of IE I've ever used. You might find a few specific areas where one of those two are better, but overall Mozilla is vastly superior to Netscape 4 and better than IE in just about every area except DOM performance. So what in your opinion makes IE so wonderful? So wonderful in fact that you spend a huge amount of your time in the Mozilla groups. If it was really so excellent you wouldn't be remotely interested in Mozilla as you'd have no need for any other browser. I'm beginning to think that your relationship with Mozilla is similar to that between those married couples who do nothing but argue and nit pick each other, but love every minute of it. Except in this case the relationship is one way... you're the Log Lady and Mozilla is the log. ian.
Re: UI problems
dman84 wrote: Tom Hatta wrote: I am having another problem. My menu, location bar, links bar, and status bar disappears, leaving only the tabs, and navigation buttons. Pressing Control-N to produce a new window doesn't help (same situation with the new window). My other user profile account doesn't have this problem. Im using the official release 0.9.7 on Windows 98. seen this before, just delete the old - problematic profile, its from hitting F12, or F11, and fullscreen stuff I think.. You don't need to delete the old profile, just press F11 again and it should fix it. ian.
Re: Mozilla on Linux - RPMs
John wrote: Under windows the recommendation is to uninstall mozilla before installing a new version (e.g. 0.9.6 to 0.9.7). Under Linux using RPMs what is the procedure? Do you rpm -e current_mozilla first and then rpm -ivh new_mozilla or is it ok to simply upgrade using rpm -U? rpm -U is fine. This stuff is handled properly under Linux and the old version really is replaced with the new (not just overwritten). If you've got multiple RPM's installed (i.e. mail, etc.) you'll need to do: rpm -Uvh mozilla*rpm ian.
Re: Is there a way to read mail as text and not HTML?
Myself wrote: And besides, more often than not, html mail contains ugly fonts/colors and is spam. Oh well then it must be true. What a terrific argument. Is there anyone that can state the case? If you're really interested you can do a search on google groups, this argument has been beaten to death many times. It basically comes down to that fact that plain text is far more accessible to a large variety of email and usenet clients. You can't even ensure a webpage will look the same in different browsers, how on earth can you be sure it'll look fine in different HTML aware email/news clients? I'm sure you'll find it easy to explain why you feel unable to communicate in plain text and what rich text provides that you can't communicate already with plain text. Why is it so important that everyone view your message with a certain font, certain background colour and font size? It's normally easiest just to send plain text and configure your client to display messages how you like, with whatever fonts and colour schemes you desire. Then you can simply forget what everyone else has and it makes life a lot easier. ian.
Re: Is there a way to read mail as text and not HTML?
Myself wrote: If you're really interested you can do a search on google groups, this argument has been beaten to death many times. It basically comes down to that fact that plain text is far more accessible to a large variety of email and usenet clients. You can't even ensure a webpage will look the same in different browsers, how on earth can you be sure it'll look fine in different HTML aware email/news clients? OK following this logic. If that is true and that substantiates the case then all webpages should be plain text. Absolute rubbish. The web is based upon hypertext, i.e. HTML, so plain text wouldn't work. Usenet on the other hand is a plain text medium. You're also ignoring all the work that goes into making sure that webpages do work on different browsers, you can't go through the same process for a missive sent to usenet. Plain text web clients (i.e. lynx) understand hypertext, plain text news/mail clients do not. I'm sure you'll find it easy to explain why you feel unable to communicate in plain text and what rich text provides that you can't communicate already with plain text. Why is it so important that everyone view your message with a certain font, certain background colour and font size? It communicates more and more easily. Are you seriously arguing against rich text? Never used a word processor? Never read a magazine or a newspaper? Are you claiming that English isn't a valid communication medium? How does rich text communicate more easily? Are you unable to express yourself without brightly coloured fonts? Magazines, Newspapers and books have nothing to do with rich text, and are completely irrelevant to what you are talking about here. They have control over the output and how people access their material, with usenet you have no control. Only etiquette put into place to make everyone's lives more easier, it's in place and it works. You've yet to do anything to obfuscate the issue, and still haven't come up with any reasons why your messages would benefit from rich text formatting. If your messages are that important you'd be better off setting up a web page. Rich text via email just doesn't work. If it did you could prove it by doing a nice newpaper style layout with a heading and three columns of text illustrated by a nice photograph positioned in the centre of the left column. Should only take a few minutes. We're sending plain text messages back and forth, not exchanging newspapers. ian.
Re: Fire Dave Hyatt
Damien Covey wrote: Blake Ross wrote: This is a petition to fire David Hyatt for his crimes against the World Wide Web, namely his implementation of automatic favicon retrieval. Sign your name here and I will pass this on to Steve Case. Is this some joke that normal guys just dont get ? Yes. ian.
Re: How's 1.0 look?
JTK wrote: Jonathan Wilson wrote: download manager still needs to land. Download manager? Read: Ad pump. You're think SmartDownload. Have you read the spec for Download Manager? ian.
Re: Why does cut and paste work
John Fabiani wrote: I only have a two button mouse. I gather there a way to use the keyboard for the middle button? Press both mouse buttons at the same time, ian.
Re: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.
JTK wrote:
Well, until you try to run/unizp whatever you downloaded and
Windows/Winzip tells you it's short. Here's an interim patch until
future civilizations rediscover the magic of ZMODEM and are able to
resume failed file transfers. You're more than welcome:
if(DownloadFailed)
{
MessageBox(NULL, Download failed., NULL, MB_OK);
DeleteFile(LocalDownloadFilename);
}
Even if it were a valid patch, that one should be a WONTFIX as:
1) Download manager will be implemented in the not too distant future
2) You can use tools like WGET to complete unfinished downloads
3) It's crap
You could always spend the time between now and then learning how to use
diff to create valid patches, as you obviously have no idea. Or is this
just planting a seed so that when download manager does appear you can
claim it was because of you?
ian.
Re: images with width of zero in tables
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it seems that Mozilla doesn't display images with a width of zero but a height greater than zero in tables. Is this conform to the standard? I think it should display an invisible line cosuming vertical space. It sounds like its doing what it should. You can't expect correct results when you rely on undefined behaviour like this, it's not possible for a image to have height but zero width, the minimum size is 1x1. There should be a more standard way of doing what you want, but it's hard to say without a real example. Your fragment would fail anyway, and the td containing the 0 width image would be the same width as the table cell containing test. It sounds like you're trying to bend HTML to do something it wasn't intended to do. You should get better results using CSS. ian.
Re: Favicon spam
Greg Miller wrote: Last I heard, the industry averages were supposed to be something like 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the number of favicon 404s would be approximately 1/6 of the total number of pageviews. That would only be true if every site consisted of just a single page, which is clearly untrue. From what I've read so far, the current implementation requests the favicon once for each domain. Erm, no. It would be *untrue* if each site consisted of a single page. Yeah, sorry, I misread what you'd written. Is this per web site, or per domain name? I'm not sure how relevant those figures are anyway, they certainly don't gell with the patterns I've seen on sites on which I have access to the statistics. There are few sites these days on which you can navigate to what you what by visiting just three pages, and those on which you can are likely to be part of a number of sites hosted on a single domain (i.e. geocities.com). I imagine the above industry averages are largely influenced by behemoths like AOL and MSN. account the average number of images/stylesheets/javascript appearing in external files. As this should be based on resources requested, not pageviews as that is misleading. I thought I was quite clear about the fact that this was only a matter of pageviews. I don't know of any good web-wide stats for requests or bandwidth, and I suspect no useful stats could be determined since things vary too widely. Personally I think in this case specific examples would be far more useful than industry averages anyway, as they are far to swayed by huge hosts. You should probably also take into account the % of /favicon.ico associated with domains, as those wouldn't appear as 404s (i.e. Netscape Enterprise Server seems to come with one as default). From a bandwidth perspective, those are even worse than 404s. As I mentioned before, averages are no consolation to the people getting hit with worst-case scenarios. But I thought part of your argument was about 404 errors in weblogs, these wouldn't occur when favicons already exist, so in that case its no more a bandwidth problem than any other image. The 404 issue is the major problem with this, requesting resources that don't exist, rather than the bandwidth. ian.
Re: Favicon spam
Greg Miller wrote: That's not a terrible increase in bandwidth (the exact figures would depend on protocol overhead and such), but web hosts have a nasty habit of charging for disk space, which often includes the space for those log files that shoot up by over 20% if everyone adopts this favicon practice or 7% with the hypothetical 30% marketshare that was mentioned earlier. It might be going out on a limb, but it sounds as though the real bandwidth problem is the collection of logfiles to generate statistics... I've encountered this, the logfiles tend to take up far more space than the websites they cater for and quickly eat up gigabytes of space, but this is really a different issue that argues for better management of logfiles. If your site is small I see little point in collecting anything but minimal filtered statistics, a summary rather than lots of raw data. As a user I've found the feature quite useful, especially when using tabbed browsing, and I can't see that either Mozilla, Konqueror or even Netscape, have the clout to get people to put link's to a favicon on every page of their site. Whereas I've been surprised by how many sites do have them... Though, as useful as I find this, I think that checking for favicons when: 1) bookmarking 2) visiting a bookmarked site without a cached 404 for the favicon would be a better compromise than the current one. The reason being that you'd get a favicon for you most visited sites. Why would I want an icon cached for any old site I just happened to visit? They're only really useful for sites I visit regularly. 2) is for sites I already haved bookmarked which may not yet have acquired a favicon. It may cause a bit of noise in logs, but a far more acceptable amount, takes advantage of the caching of favicon status and only comes from visitors who care enough to bookmark your pages. You could also have a pref use favourite icons for bookmarks to let this be turned on or off. ian.
Re: Favicon spam
Greg Miller wrote: Jonas Sicking wrote: It would be really interesting to get some hard numbers on this. Just looking at the current logs will not really say anything since very few people browse with a mozilla with this pref turned on. So we need to come up with some way to approximate the number of 404s per (for example) month in the event of a browser with, say, 30% marketshare using the current configuration. Last I heard, the industry averages were supposed to be something like 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the number of favicon 404s would be approximately 1/6 of the total number of pageviews. That would only be true if every site consisted of just a single page, which is clearly untrue. From what I've read so far, the current implementation requests the favicon once for each domain. So you're number above needs to be divided by the average number of pages visited by a single user on a server. You also need to take into account the average number of images/stylesheets/javascript appearing in external files. As this should be based on resources requested, not pageviews as that is misleading. So it should actually be: 1/(6*visited pages per server*resources per page) To fill in some numbers pulled from the air: 1/(6*10*10) So that accounts to 1/6000 resource requests. If you can come up with some numbers to fill in the above guesses then you'd get closer to the actual figure. You should probably also take into account the % of /favicon.ico associated with domains, as those wouldn't appear as 404s (i.e. Netscape Enterprise Server seems to come with one as default). ian.
Re: Favicon spam
Ian Davey wrote: 1/(6*10*10) So that accounts to 1/6000 resource requests. If you can come up with some numbers to fill in the above guesses then you'd get closer to the actual figure. That should be 1/600 - it's too early in the morning :-) ian.
Re: favicon
David Hyatt wrote: Make sure you ban Konqueror too. :) And don't forget IE...! ian.
Re: question: why do people continue to use ns4.x instead of ns6/mozilla?
Christopher Jahn wrote: And it came to pass that Gregory Spath wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote: --090503040007000902030100 Jay Garcia wrote: Jonathan Wilson wrote: What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users? Also, given that netscape is focused on netscape 6, why do they still even bother to support 4.x? There are many Corporate Enterprise users out there that PAID for the application suite. Communicator will be supported for quite some time. And NEtscape is quite 'incomplete' for corporate usage. For example: -No calendar client -No search function in addressbook -No roaming access. -Netscape 6 still has some problems with forms. Not to mention -the inability to sync with PALM/PDA's -lack of print preview -lack of addressbook export function -inability to use external mail clients What does any of that have to do with a web browser A question was asked, and it was answered. This is what people expect of Netscape 6, regardless of your thoughts on the matter. People want everything they had in Communicator, and not one thing less will do. Netscape 6.x is VERY lacking when held to Communicator's list of features. When people have been driving a Cadillac El Dorado, you don't give them a Dodge Neon and expect an enthusiastic response. I think you're generalizing a bit here. I've switched entirely to NS6.x/Mozilla now, mainly because of the large number of features it has that NS4 doesn't. The features you complain about that were in NS4, were features I never used, so version 6 more than meets my needs. Both as a browser and usenet client. So it very much depends on the individual. It's been a long time since I've had to fire up NS4 to do anything. The features listed above may be important for corporate clients, but the average user can easily do without them. Though even these features are starting to appear (print preview for instance). ian.
Re: MSN Passport NS6.1 data security issues
Emlyn wrote: What data security issues are there in NS6.1 that are not there in NS4.08-4.82(- HUH???)??? So this time it's not a standards compliance issue... If you point Mozilla to a .xul file (intentionally or not) then someone else gains some measure of control over your browser. This is a security issue. It's not a trivial one. (I'm not sure about Netscape 6.2, though. It would make sense to dis-allow viewing XUL files in a user-targeted Mozilla-derivative. Did they? Anyone know?) That's not true at all, any more than opening a webpage gives someone control of your browser. There are security policies in place to stop remote XUL having as much power as local XUL. If you want your XUL application to work locally you need to put it in an XPI and allow the user to be prompted for installation (see the applications as mozdev.org for examples). The thing is, I'm sure IE has security issues too, and IE running under Windows must have security issues - the same ones as windows itself. So why do they allow you to access .NET using IE? ian. -- \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Tab Browsing Update
Pratik wrote: (2) The confusing close box on the far right has been eliminated. Looking for ideas for a better solution (perhaps an X on the tab only when it is the active tab). I like the MultiZilla way of middle clicking on the tab to close it. That'd be no good on Linux, middle clicking when you've got a URL in the clipboard opens that URL in the current window. ian. -- \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Next Milestone?
Thomas Gilfether and Jonathan Carver wrote: Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: Anyone have any info as to when the next milestone is going to be released? Thanks Gordon download the nightly build to get 0.9.4 The nightly builds show progress towards 0.9.4 (which is very close now), but aren't actually the final 0.9.4 release. Builds flagged with the forthcoming milestone number appear as soon as it branches. The real 0.9.4 will be out (hopefully) tomorrow. ian. -- \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Netscape 6 Problem
Ian Winter wrote: Thank you for input. I followqed rge directions on that site, but i am still having problems. When I click on a url in an e-mail messege MS explower launches instead of Netscape ^. Is there some other problem? If setting it under View -- Advanced -- System doesn't work then it may just be the way Outlook handles URLs (i.e. it only wants to pass them to IE). ian.
Re: Netscape will not run on unpriviledged (unix) account
Marcel Dorenbos wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago I have installed Netscape 6.1. Now I can only run this
application being root on Linux. As a normal user I see the following
error message:
/usr/local/netscape/netscape
/usr/local/netscape/run-mozilla.sh /usr/local/netscape/mozilla-bin
MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME=/usr/local/netscape
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/netscape:/usr/local/netscape/Cool
LIBPATH=/usr/local/netscape/Cool:/usr/local/netscape:/opt/mozilla/
SHLIB_PATH=/usr/local/netscape/Cool:/usr/local/netscape:/opt/mozilla/
XPCS_HOME=/usr/local/netscape/Cool
MOZ_PROGRAM=/usr/local/netscape/mozilla-bin
MOZ_TOOLKIT=
moz_debug=0
moz_debugger=
I am inside the initialize
Hey : You are in QFA Startup
(QFA)Talkback error: Can't initialize.
/usr/local/netscape/run-mozilla.sh: line 72: 14500 Segmentation fault
$prog ${1+$@}
Run it once as root to make sure all the component stuff is set up
properly, then make sure all the sub-directories+files are world
readable/executable. I've had a problem with some Mozilla distributions
where only root had read/execute access to certain files/directories.
ian.
Re: Mozilla 1.0? Shouldn't it be 5.0
JTK wrote: Garth Wallace wrote: JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... What I find rather odd is that while many here cry Mozilla isn't for users!, Netscape 6.x, which is no more than Mozilla with an AOL sticker on it, is supposed to be the Mozila for end users. Evidently JTK hasn't discovered an interesting linguistic property known as context. The builds provided by Mozilla are not intended for end-users. The code produced by the Mozilla project is not written for immediate consumption by end users. However, it is written with the understanding that other groups will package it for use by end-users. And that packaging in the case of AOL is a sticker that says Netscape overtop the one that says Mozilla. What context did I miss there? So where is mozilla.org's support infrastructure to look after all these users? That's one thing these repackagers provide that Mozilla certainly cannot. ian. -- \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: bookmarks question
rob wrote: Hmmm ... just have a question about how the bookmarks are supposed to be working these days. I test mozilla / NS builds at home and at work, and I've got some different behavior happening depending on where i use it and what build i'm using so i'm sorta wondering what is supposed to be happening, where there might be some preferences, etc. + sometimes when i add a bookmark, it adds it immediately. Bookmarks -- Add Bookmark + sometimes when i add a bookmark, i get a dialog which asks me where i'd like to add it. Bookmarks -- File Bookmark... ian. -- \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: xhtml transitional
rob wrote:
Hello,
It is my understanding that XHTML transitional documents are rendered in
standards mode. (please correct me if i'm wrong)
We've been experimenting here with XHTML transitional code and we're
continually finding extra space around elements, particularly images
which are laid out horizontally in TD's, etc.
I thought maybe a solution was to place an img style element with no
padding or margins, but this did not close up the tables.
While I realize that ideally formatting and layout would all be handled
via stylesheets, for backwards compatibility and via the transitional
dtd we've been hoping to continue to use sort of a mix.
Oh, and the pages in question render fine in IE ... sigh ...
Any thoughts off hand, even without seeing the code?
Images are inline elements, so they get the inline box drawn around
them. There are a couple workarounds:
td img {vertical-align: bottom}
or
td img {display: block}
ian.
--
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
Re: AutoFill forms for Netscape
Jerry Watson wrote: Does anyone know if Netscape ever plans to add a forms AutoFill feature for easily completing forms on web pages. If this feature was in the Netscape application I would walk away from other browsers in a second. It may have been disabled in 6.0 but it's a feature that's always existed in Mozilla, and should be in 6.1. Edit - Prefill Form / Save Form Data / View Stored Data. ian. -- \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Mozilla 0.9.2 Crashing when not run as root
Crash Course wrote:
I installed the newest version of mozilla an our or so ago.
Everything seemed to run fine until I tried to run it as myself instead
of as root (I installed it as root of course though).
Here is the dump I get when trying to run (by typing
/usr/local/mozilla/mozilla on the command line):
MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME=/usr/local/mozilla
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/mozilla:/usr/local/mozilla/plugins
LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/mozilla:/usr/local/mozilla/components
SHLIB_PATH=/usr/local/mozilla
LIBPATH=/usr/local/mozilla
ADDON_PATH=/usr/local/mozilla
MOZ_PROGRAM=/usr/local/mozilla/mozilla-bin
MOZ_TOOLKIT=
moz_debug=0
moz_debugger=
/usr/local/mozilla/run-mozilla.sh: line 72: 14026 Segmentation fault
$prog ${1+$@}
I had this problem as well, it's because most of the files are only
accessible as root when installed (I don't normally have this problem).
I did a quick:
chmod -R a+rx *
in the /usr/local/mozilla/ directory to get it running, but will be
writing a script to do it properly tonight (you want to do chmod a+rx on
all directories/executables and chmod a+r on all other files).
I'm not sure why this release had these problems, it may just be the sea
installer version.
ian.
Re: very slow
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lamb liu) wrote: I use netscape6.01A on Solaris8 (UltraStation10, UltraSparcII 260M , Memory 128M), It is very slow though more stable than Netscape 4.7 (which is an ugly stupid software) who knows how to speed up it? Try Mozilla 0.9 instead. Netscape 6 is based on quite old code now, and wasn't very optimised, the next version will be better though. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Has this become a NS4 support forum?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its not a matter of being lazy. It takes no more or less time to bottom or top post. All you have to do is choose to set for one or the other. Top posting is just more logical. The thread flows better. Then why is bottom posting the usenet convention rather than top posting? Top posting may make sense in a one to one email conversation, but in usrnet once a thread references several participants it gets very difficult to follow what's going on if one of them is top posting. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Mozilla SUCKS!!!!!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Betz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a problem with a form on my site, it's a textarea when you hit submit it sends the content to my email adress. No problem with Netscape old and IE, a warning msg appears that this msg will be sent via email and it sends the msg. But Mozilla opens just the email compose window with no content in it. Is this a bug or do I use bad HTML? You should use the CGI form email handling script that your webspace provider should supply, they're much more reliable. Trying to submit forms using mailto isn't recommended, it won't work at all with older versions of IE for instance, and many other browsers. So you'll wind up losing a lot of form submissions. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: cellpadding in netscape 6...?
In article XrNK6.4387$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Moose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Netscape 6. Does cellpadding work or not?? Yes. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Can my computer handle Mozilla?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Davey wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*. On what platform, Why2K. on start up it's 14MB to display a blank page here (on WinNT at work). That's not what I'm seeing. I'll try yet again today, maybe the RAM Fairy visited Mozilla overnight. How much memory do you have? I noticed something interesting yesterday. I went from having 64MB, where Mozilla starts at about 14MB, to 128MB and it now starts at around 20MB. I remember hearing that Mozilla has logic to manage it's memory depending on how much free memory there is, so it may well be being more greedy when there is a glut of free memory. The process size never used to grow to more than what I had (64MB) so that makes sense. Some people with a lot of memory (256MB) have reported it growing quite large, bigger than my machine would even have been able to hold in memory, whereas I was able to run it quite happily all day without a crash. And without the memory exceeding about 29MB. I assume on machines with larger memory it's keeping more uncompressed images (even small jpeg's take up a lot of memory when uncompressed for display) etc. cached in memory. Linux does something similar, using a lot of the free memory to cache disk accesses, but returning it to the system when it is needed. Rather than leaving wasted memory it could be making use of. Not sure of the numbers at home on Linux. This is without the Java plugin though which seems to account for quite a bit of bloat. As far as I know, I don't have any Java plugin. I'm installing just whatever comes in the ~8MB nightly, and I'm sure Java just by itself wouldn't fit in that 8MB. Yes, that's what I use. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: I want to help the Mozilla/SVG Effort
In article 9bh2fb$8t1uf$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jane" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I have tried some SVG samples in my Netscape 4.7 and it works! I don't know really how, but it works, I don't even need new 6 version. You're probably using the Abobe plugin... ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: I would really like to give mozilla a chance, but.....
In article 3adc44e5$0$18689$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I did. I also installed it as root, but that should not cause it to fail to run, should it? Interestingly enough, I looked in the "/usr/local/mozilla/run-mozilla.sh" file that is mentions and at the line it gags on (72) it is ### comment. Kindof wierd. Anyway, I am in the process right now of downloading the entire 11meg package and will try to install it that way instead of downloading the installer and then having it download the components. Maybe that will make a difference! I hope so anyway. That's what I always do, download the full package and choose which components I want to install. At least that was what I did until a few weeks ago, now I download the code using CVS and compile it. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Why ? - Mozilla core dump @startup
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Courtney Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just installed [successfully as far as I can tell] Mozilla from the FreeBSD port and get core dumped no matter how I try to start it. I think it still needs to write to the install directory the first time it runs, so you may need to run it once as root. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Shockwave Flash Plugin
In article 0104051046170G.00233@Insanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried to install the shockwave flash plugin with mozilla ( Linux Version), butit does not seem to recongnize that it is there when I enter any of the shockwave enabled pages...I followed the instructions for a Netscape install, and copied the libflashplayer.so, and ShockwaveFlash.class files into the directory /usr/local/mozilla/plugins ( /usr/local was my prefix for installing mozilla), restarted mozilla, and whent to a shockwave site, but mozilla still thinks there is no plugin installed..What have I done wrong?? When running Mozilla from the commandline does it say "registering plugins" and list the shockwave plugin? Have you tried running it once as root once you've installed the plugin (just long enough for it to start up, then quit and run as a normal user)? ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Win ME, moz starting/window opening hangs
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Shepps) wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Orrin Edenfield) wrote Have you tried deleting the file mozreg.dat, which is probably somewhere in your C:\Windows (maybe C:\Windows\System) folder? Search for it with Find All Files, and see what you find, if you get rid of it, I think it is rebuilt, and if not, you might have to install Mozilla again. Yes. There is no such file on my system! It's under c:\windows (not system) ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Table first two rows display oddly
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Scott G." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. I was not aware that Mozilla/NS6 were complete rewrites. Beginning with which version? The rewrite started about two years ago, when the idea of trying to build on the NS4 codebase was dumped. Every version of Mozilla since about October 1998 has been from the new codebase. It's probably over 90% new code. Also, I have avoided d/l and install of NS6 because (a) our company's corporate standard is IE5.01 and (b) of the many problems I have seen with it in the various newsletters I subscribe to. Any idea when these will be addressed? A lot of them are addressed already in Mozilla, which recently released version 0.8. It'll hit 1.0 sometime in the second quarter of this year all going well. I use it as my main browser now and have very few problems. Netscape 6.5 should be based on version 1.0, so it might be worth waiting until then if you want to try it out (or try Mozilla 0.8 now, as it's a big step forward from Netscape 6). ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: table rendering glitch?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Hoopman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking at this, glancing at it from the corners of my eyes,
put it away for a few days, printed it an put it under my pillow at
night, chanting black/white and other magic at it, stared at it some
more and finally concluded I'm probably too stupid to figure it out.
Maybe one of you could take a stab at this.
In short:
I've got a pretty straightforward page that renders differently in IE5
and Mozilla 0.8.
It has got 4 nested tables with some images, a form and a linked
stylesheet.
The way I see it IE renders it correctly while Mozilla adds some 3
pixels bottom margin to each cell and it is driving me up the walls.
I've attached a testcase showing this behaviour, should I be filing this
as a bug or am I overlooking something.
Have you tried:
td img {vertical-align: bottom}
The default is baseline and would explain the extra pixels you are seeing.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
Re: table rendering glitch?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Hoopman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The default is baseline and would explain the extra pixels you are seeing.
I thought this would not be an issue seeing that the td height attributes
exactly match the height of the images for that row.
It's an issue because it aligns to the baseline of text, so if you have the
following:
dropped img src=".."
With "img {vertical-align: baseline}" the bottom of the image will align to
the bottom of the d (the default), with "img {vertical-align: bottom}" it
aligns to the bottom of the p.
I imagine the space occurs because the image is an inline element within the
table cell.You could probably also get rid of it by changing the image to
display as a block element.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
Re: netscape-6.01
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], AhmetAA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: N6.5 is quite pesimistic.. 6.1 or 6.2 could be ok.. But 6.01 is yes, unusable. From what I've heard it sounds like 6.5 will be the next release. If it does turn out to be 6.1, then I'd recommend that one (or whatever version of NS that coincides with Mozilla 1.0). But beware, if your Computer does not have 64M or more RAM (64 is acceptable but more is better) or if you have very slow CPU (like slower than 266-300Mhz) Mozilla or N6 might be quite painful, at least for now. I've run it on my P2 NT4 233Mhz machine with 64MB and it works fine, easily fast enough once you've got it running. I don't run the Java plugin though. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: netscape-6.01
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zsolt Koppany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a couple of weeks ago I tried netscape-6.0 under Linux. The software was simple unusable. Should I try 6.01? I can hardly imagine that a lot of bugs were fixed in a couple of weeks. Right now I use 4.76 and it is stable. You should wait for Mozilla 0.8 which should be out very soon (sometime this week hopefully) and install that. The recently nightlies have been excellent under Linux, and quite a bit faster than Mozilla 0.7. I'd wait until Netscape 6.5 before performing an upgrade from NS4.75. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: User stylesheet
In article 968vht$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jeffrey Yasskin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, this shouldn't be this difficult. There should be an easy-to-find setting in preferences so that people other than Mozilla developers can make their own stylesheet. I'm sure there will be, there just isn't a UI for it yet. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: User stylesheet
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can Mozilla have a user assignable stylesheet like IE and Opera? Somthing where you can have your own rules to apply to every page you visit. If not, do they plan on having somthing like this? Don't tell me IE has this feature and Mozilla doesn't.. :) It's definately possible as I've tried it out before, but can't remember offhand how to do it. You create a file called something like userContent.css and put it in your profile. Can anyone give more details? ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Fresh Installs of Nightlies - keeping profiles clean withoutreentering all info?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth promulgated by the same folks who thump the side of their TV to fix the reception. Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to be corrupted, which is unlikely in any case. Very true, I've not deleted these in a very long time. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Help! Netscape 6
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I downloaded Netscape 6 (dumb of me). Among other things, it converted every image file in my computer over to a Netscape file. And to open an image, each time a new Netscape window opens, with an error message. I tried to de-install Netscape 6, but found only a text file. I am now back to version 4.75, but can't convert image files back to their previous state. Anyone else encounter this and find a way to get back to where they were before the downloading of 6? Expert advice most appreciated. Assuming Windows, load explorer then do: View -- Options -- File Types. Then change the viewer for image files. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: How to turn off loading Netscape's news center at Messenger startup?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karsten Wutzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? Not in my Messenger...! Can you tell me the EXACT button name or similar, please? Which version of Communicator do you have? These are the Mozilla newsgroups (Mozilla/Netscape 6), so I was talking about those rather than Communicator. For Netscape 4 you'd be better off asking in the newsgroups on secnews.netscape.com. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: which files? (was Re: Thank you all)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong files, under the WINNT folder you'll file "Profiles", and under that you NT user profile directory, and under that "Application Data". Inside that last one you'll find a Mozilla folder that needs to be nuked. I managed to get away with it by: 1) deleting registry.dat in c:\winnt\profiles\idavey\application data\mozilla\registry.dat 2) rename c:\winnt\profiles\idavey\application data\mozilla\users50\default to olddefault 3) run Mozilla and let it create a new blank profile 4) closed Mozilla 5) copied all files from olddefault into new profile directory. And it worked fine without losing any of my data. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: How to turn off loading Netscape's news center at Messenger startup?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karsten Wutzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is annoying me!!! I takes longer, and it is only AMERICAN news. I want to get rid of it. Is there a way? Edit -- Preferences -- Mail There's a preference there to choose the mail "start page". ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Infinite loop detected... again !
In article 944e40$bv$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jean-Denis Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Mozilla 0.7 still comes with the "Infinite loop detected" bug, apparently for people having a proxy/firewall (ie people at work). Can you post a URL? I've only ever come across this on page with a genuine infinite loop (a redirect to itself)? ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Why do they choose to require that much ressoures?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Mozilla nightlies are getting more resource hungry rather than less, it seems :-( After yesterday's download, I discovered with some dismay that it's already using 29Megs - without me having visited ANY Just to clarify, I've been running it all day, viewed lots of PDF files using the Adobe plugin and memory usage is currently 19MB. A few months ago it would have been up to 39MB by now. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Does Netscape 6 support vbscript?
In article 90l0ua$s0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Tom Hesen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is is possible to view vbscript with netscape 6??? No. It's possible someone may attempt a project to implement it in the future, but I'd imagine it's quite tightly tied to IE's object model. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: Changes to NS6.0 that would bring world peace
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
layer support as it existed in version 4.7 and maybe even drop the BLINK
tag wich is far more useless in my opinion. The BLINK tag is not even part
of any standard so its a bit of a contradiction to say that you ONLY support
standards and therefore stopped supporting layers.
BLINK is not supported. CSS1 text-decoration : blink is.
Actually, you'll find this in html.css:
blink {
text-decoration: blink;
}
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
Re: Recent Builds: Scrollbars
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henning Schnoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in today's and yesterday's build, Scrollbars don't appear (using Windows). The problem occurs both in Navigator and in MailNews (didn't check anything else). You probably know about that, but I didn't see it mentioned here... It's been fine for me in Windows, but I had the same problem with Friday/Saturday's builds on Linux. ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
Re: NS 6 Does NOT Support Standards...
In article 3a27c8d5.93537650@news-server, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Netscape 6 does not support Internet standards in my opinion. If you print a web page with an applet on it, the applet will not print. That has nothing to do with internet standards. This group is also about Mozilla (which is still working towards version 1.0) not Netscape 6. If you want to see this feature in Mozilla (and thereafter Netscape 6), the best thing to do is: 1) download a Mozilla nightly and confirm it doesn't already do what you want 2) search http://bugzilla.mozilla.org to see if a bug is already filed against this. 3) file a bug and include a reference to a page where the problem occurs. This group is for development of Mozilla, so if you want to improve it, you've got an opportunity to pitch in a help (by filing bugs). ian. \ / (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature) /()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art) | |
