Re: New themes for Moz 0.9.9 @ Xulplanet

[Michael Spertus]

The pinball theme is excellent! I am now using it for most of my 
browsing. Thanks to Johannes for giving us some new themes at last.

Mike

Booler wrote:

> Nigel L wrote:
> 
>> Nigel L responds:
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>
>>> Nigel L wrote:
>>>
 www.xulplanet.com added GreyModern and Pinball themes for Mozilla 
 0.9.9 on March 17.  Latter adds pleasing splashes of color atop 
 Navigator (only).  I'd welcome word of  which build will break them 
 since I usually use latest 
 nightly.   Rgds,   Nigel L

>>>
>>> I tried to install both, but they wouldn't take.  The info sez that 
>>> they work with 0.9.9, but it *also* gives 1.0 as the version.  (I'm 
>>> using 2002031104.)  Which probably doesn't answer your question. . . .
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>> Yeah, Brian, I too didn't get the theme to convert to Pinball 
>> immediately after download.  I closed down Mozilla (e.g., exit from 
>> Quick Launch), restarted, went to Edit>Preferences>Appearance>Themes 
>> and then selected it.  No detectable problems with my milestone 0.9.9 
>> release installation on WinMe.. :-)
>>
>> Bests,   
>> Nigel L
>>
> 
> Also on W2K
> 
> Cu
> 
> Booler
> 

Re: 0.9.9: remembering passwords etc.

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Veera Venkataramani wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (hugo vanwoerkom) writes:
> 
>> Thanks!! That answers that!
>> 
>> Christian Biesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > hugo vanwoerkom wrote:
>> > > 0.9.9 (previous versions also) WILL ask to remember uid, pw etc. for
>> > > all sorts of sites, NEVER for www.yahoo.com/mail. Why is that?
>> > 
>> > Because Yahoo decided to deactivate this feature, they used the 
>> > autocomplete="off" attribute in the  tag.
> Is there someway I can turn it back on?

no.  (well, you could patch the mozilla code to make it ignore that
setting, or you could get yahoo to change their page, but other than
that, no...)

-- 
michael

Re: Annoying Things about 0.9.9

[michael lefevre]

In article <c8Sn8.417205$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John
Reyst wrote:
> 
> 
> 13. and it sometimes doesn't like to stay minimized. You click minimize and
> it does for a second, then comes right back to full size. Only way to fix it
> is to close/restart after that.

that bug is now third in the most duped bugs chart.  it appears that a
fix is in hand... http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120155

-- 
michael

Re: Warum hat Mozilla 0.9.9 so viele neue Bugs? Ein Sabotuer?

[michael lefevre]

In article <a7lmrm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bamm Gabriana wrote:
> It is.
> 
> Let a = 1.
> a^2 = a (multiply both sides by a)
> a^2 - 1 = a - 1 (subtract 1 from both sides)
> (a + 1)(a - 1) = (a - 1) (factor it)

ok.

> (a + 1) = 1 (cancel common factors)

whoops... a-1 is 0, so you've just divided both sides of your equation by
zero!  that doesn't leave you with (a+1)=1...

> QED/ :)

i'm afraid not :)

-- 
michael

Re: Warum hat Mozilla 0.9.9 so viele neue Bugs? Ein Sabotuer?

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pascal Chevrel wrote:
> Thomas a dit :
>> The site validates as HTML Transitional. It's Mozilla's fault. Netscape 
>> 6.2 does it right, Mozilla 0.9.9 not. That annoys me. This should not 
>> happen.
> 
> Mozilla's fault at what ? Could you please translate what you first said 
> in German ?

he filed a bug as well - it appears there are problems, and they're being
investigated.  the discussion in the bug makes things clearer:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130837

-- 
michael

Re: Uploading to FTP

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, grayrest wrote:
> Bamm Gabriana wrote:
>>>If I dragged a file onto what to me as a user appears to be a ftp
>>>program, it should upload, if I drag it onto a browser window, it should
>>>display.
>> 
>> But if the browser window displays a URL that begins with ftp://
>> and end with a / (signifying a directory) I would intuitively imagine
>> I was looking at a remote pane of an FTP window. So like
>> Patrick, I half-expect to be able to drop a file there to upload
>> it to that window.
>> 
>> There should be a pref:
>> Dropping a file into an FTP folder should
>> ( ) Open it
>> (x) Upload it
>> 
>> If not, at least a user pref.
> 
> or maybe it should just upload like we all expect? 

i don't know who "we" is, but it doesn't include me, and i imagine it
wouldn't include many others. the standard behaviour when you drop
something onto a mozilla window is for it to open in mozilla, not upload
it to the remote site... i quite often drag things onto half hidden
windows to open them - i wouldn't want that to be attempting uploads to
random sites...

-- 
michael

Re: NetScape 6.2 and HTML forms

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> jim patriarca wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody know why when setting action="mailto:"; in an HTML form
>> NS6 launches its Email program instead of popping up the the alert box
>> that says something like "you are about to send your email address
>> over the internet" etc..
> 
> Mozilla/NS6 doesn't support "mailto:"; forms. Why should it? They aren't 
> part af the W3C standards

they aren't part of the current standards... mailto: forms are in the
HTML 3.2 standard though.

>, and the forms will not work for users who are 
> viewing your site from public computer terminals which doesn't have a 
> mail client configured.

i certainly wouldn't suggest that using mailto: forms is a good idea
(indeed, having come across one just today, i emailed the site owner to
say that they should sort out a site with a cgi instead...). however,
that doesn't mean that mozilla shouldn't implement them anyway.

> See <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61893>.

to which i've just added a note about the HTML 3.2 standard, 'cause
nobody seemed to have mentioned it yet...

-- 
michael

Free Mature Pics'n Videos!!!

[michael]

Title: Free Mature Erotic Pics & Video!




Remember the free sex crowd of the 60's?

Well now they are the sexy seniors of the new 
millennium! 

Talk about experienced! WOW!  
Click and get your free pics today!
 
 
 Visit  
 Mature X Today!
 


  
		
 

		
 

	
	
		
 

		
 

	
	
		
 

	



   MATURE HARDCORE CLICK HERE

 
  
  

  
  
   
   GAY
  
  
   
   VIDEO
  
 
  HARDCORE
  

  AMATEURS


  
 
  TEENS
  
  
  ASIANS
  
  
   FOR LADIES
  
 
   BLACK


  
  
   LESBIANS
  
  
  FETISH
  

  LATINA
  
  
   
   SOFTCORE


  

Re: Display problem

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Thompson wrote:
> Here's another display problem I'm seeing in Mozilla-0.9.9: on sites with 
> text flowing around images (for example http://news.bbc.co.uk ), text will 
> sometimes flow out of its column and overlay an adjacent image.  Font size 
> of the text will also change at the same point.  Netscape-6.2.1 displays 
> the text and images properly.
> 
> Is this a known bug?  If so, is there a work-around?

yes it is, but no there isn't.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116273

[f'ups to .unix ignored, set to .general group - this isn't a unix issue]

-- 
michael

Re: URL completion not working

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Howard wrote:
> I'm running 0.9.9 at home (on Win98SE) and at work (on WinNT 4.0).
> At home, if I enter "cnn" in the URL field and press enter, Mozilla adds 
> in the "http://www."; and ".com" as it has all along (I'm a lazy typist).
> At work, I get the following error message:
> 
> Error 400 - Proxy Error: Host name not recognized or host not found - 
> URL http://cnn/.
> 
> Is this because of the different OS?  The proxy server at work?  Some 
> setting I haven't found?

it's because of the proxy server, and that's how it's supposed to work.

at home, mozilla tries to connect to a host called "cnn", finds that it
doesn't exist, and then tries adding the www. and the .com

at work, mozilla connects to the proxy and asks it for "cnn". if it's not
found, it gets the page back from the proxy saying "error", if it is
found, it gets a real page back from the proxy.  mozilla isn't in a
position to interpret what happened beyond the proxy ("error 400" could
mean a whole bunch of different things - although in your case the proxy
does describe the error in english as a "host not found", that's not
standard and not all proxies are as specific), so it doesn't try adding
bits to the URL.

if you particularly wanted to be able to bring up cnn with just "cnn",
you could add a bookmark for the cnn site, and give it a keyword of "cnn"
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html

-- 
michael

Re: bugzilla; lock symbol

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Joop wrote:
[snip]
> what's bothering me right now (and what i've never seen working) is this:
> 
> when several tabs are open, some with http URLs, some with https URLs,
> the lock symbol in the lower right corner is not displayed correctly,
> i.e. e.g. it is displayed open even though there's a proper https
> connection in the selected tab (as can be verified by opening the same
> page in a separate window), or even worse, the lock is closed even for
> http URLs.

well you don't need to be submitting that anyway - it's on the "most
frequently reported" bugs list already because there have been so many
duplicate reports.

it's http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101723 and there appears
to be a patch which got approval to be checked into the trunk
yesterday so it should be fixed in the nightly builds any day now, and
then of course in the 1.0 release.

-- 
michael

Re: "Quick Launch"

[Michael A. Koenecke]

"Legshot"  wrote in
a73o32$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:a73o32$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> What's the purpose of a quick launch option that is not quick at all?
> 
> Sure IE is part of windows and uses parts of the explorer itself...
> but the explorer uses like 10k of memory
> and it's always in memory
> so you could say the explorer is the quick launch of ie... it just
> works MUCH better than the useless quicklaunch feature of mozilla :)
> Believe it or not I've tested em all and in the end the IE 6 is the
> most solid, stable and useable browser...
> 
Internet Explorer actually uses many megabytes of memory just sitting 
there; however, most of it is credited to the operating system in 
general. If you compare regular Windows 98 with 98Lite, which has 
Internet Explorer removed, you can see the difference.

And I've tried them all, too, and prefer Mozilla. Sure, it crashes 
sometimes -- but so does IE on my Windows 2000 system.

Re: mozilla 0.9.9 crashes

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jukola wrote:
> 
> How come Mozilla is the only programme asking for this detailed 
> information?

it isn't.

> I have never been asked to send an error report while using 
> Netscape or Explorer.

i guess you don't have Internet Explorer's error reporting installed
then?  it does pretty much the same thing as mozilla's talkback.  it's
not installed by default in the released versions of IE (although it's
there as an option - check Windows Update)... but then the talkback (i
guess) won't be installed by default with later releases of netscape.

if you don't want to submit the information, you don't have to, but that
doesn't mean it isn't useful.  and as for asking about printers, last
year we got a printer at work and installed the drivers for it, and it
caused our accounts package to crash - looked very much like a problem
with that software (nothing to do with printing), so if it had been in
development it would certainly have been useful for the developers to
know about the printer drivers...

-- 
michael

Re: "Quick Launch"

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roope Lehmuslehto wrote:
> Andreas R wrote:
>> IE always consumes your memory, since it's integrated with Windows.
>> IF you use Quick Launch, then at least it's your own choice if you want to.
> 
> Hmm, I meant that when Quick Launch enabled, Mozilla should
> forced to keep in memory no matter what.

well i certainly wouldn't like it to do that.  i guess it could be an
option - it would just need the quick launch applet to actually be active
in the background and touch all the code that's remaining loaded to
ensure it remains in.

i can't see the logic in doing that though... if you have, say, 96Mb
RAM, and 32Mb is used by windows, a further 32Mb is used by mozilla, and
then you load diablo, if you then force mozilla (and of course windows)
to remain loaded, then you end up trying to run diablo in only 32Mb of
RAM, which means bits of diablo will be continually paged in and out and
the game will be unplayable. 

the amount of RAM is limited, something will have to be paged out to
disk.  surely it's better to have windows page out the stuff you're not
using, rather than have it page out the stuff you are actually running?

if you don't want anything paged, then you'll need to have enough RAM to
ensure that nothing is forced out.

-- 
michael

Double Print Bug - Serious

[Michael A. Koenecke]

Perhaps my Bugzilla searching skills are subpar, but I cannot find a bug 
relating to the "double print" problem. On my machine (Athlon 1 gig, 512 M 
RAM, Windows 2000 Pro, Mozilla 0.9.9), Mozilla will print something *once*. 
Printing anything (the same thing, something else; doesn't matter) else 
causes a crash. In my opinion, this is a show stopper: one should be able 
to print several Web pages if desired without crashing. Considering the bug 
relating to interaction with WordPerfect 10's printing process, it seems to 
me something's definitely screwy about Mozilla's print routines.

Re: Forwarding emails with full headers as attachments

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dman84 wrote:
> When I get a forward, I dont wanna see all that crap.. I just wanna read 
> the mail message.. If I know who sent it to me, that is all I need to 
> know..
> 
> receiving a forward without full headers, I like that.. to me I just 
> scroll over all that anyway and go to the message text.

that's fair enough when the forward is inline.

if you receive a forwarded message as an attachment, then you won't see
all those other headers anyway, you'll get the normal view which hides
most of them when you open the attachment.

-- 
michael

Re: My only minor problem with 0.9.9...

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sid Vicious wrote:
> Tuukka Tolvanen wrote:
>> Phil Edwards wrote:
>> 
>>> ...is that the underlined bright blue sidebar bookmarks look like ass.
>> 
>> 
>> No blue glare, no underline, no ass, nay more.
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114142
> 
> Fixed, but when will we see it?

well if you get one of the nightlies (built from the developing code each
day), you can see it fixed now... however, you may well run into other
bugs using the nightlies. it will also be in the next release (1.0), but
that won't be for some weeks...

-- 
michael

local file in sidebar

[Michael Pillsbury]

Hey folks,

Does anyone know if it's possible to access a local HTML or XUL file as 
a sidebar tab?  It's a question that's been asked before, but I've never 
found a satisfactory answer.

Adding this to panels.rdf doesn't seem to do it:

   

I just get the "This tab id not available right now" message.  Any ideas?

Michael Pillsbury

Re: Killer features?

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geraint Edwards wrote:
> dman84 wrote:
> 
>>> 1. Spam avoidance.
>> 
>> Javascript stuff is turned off by default in mail & news.. sounds like 
>> quite a project..
> 
> What I am talking about is not javascript it is html email that includes 
>   lines to the effect :
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as this email is read/previewed 'spammer.com' knows 
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' is a valid email address and that the recipient 
> reads their emails.

ah... that's one of the most "voted" bugs in bugzilla, and it is being
worked on.  it's got "mozilla1.0+" status, but it looks like it needs
quite a bit of work before it makes it...
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28327

>>> 3. Printing scaled images
> 
>> I think printing scaling should be working in a new nightly as well.
> 
> Again - interesting.  Is this in MS Windows only?

i don't think so, no.

so, looks like everything you're looking for is on the way... :)

-- 
michael

Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:31:24AM +, DeMoN LaG wrote:
> Chris Charabaruk  wrote in
> 3C916A25.3010105@coldacid">news:3C916A25.3010105@coldacid, on 14 Mar 2002: 

> > Yeah, tell me about it. Same people, different parties. Or, as
> > many have put it before, same difference. :P Whether it's the
> > Republicans or the Democrats who are in 'power', the real sceptre
> > is held by the corporate lobby groups, and a nice select group of
> > unknown advisors in government agencies such as the CIA.


> Lewis Black put it best:
> What's the difference between a democrat and a republican?  A democrat 
> sucks, a republican blows

Democrats sleep in king size beds (we won't get into who with).
Republicans sleep in separate bedrooms.  That's why there are more
Democrats than Republicans.

And the counter to that is...  That's also why there are more BASTARD
Democrats than Republicans...  (Ok...  So we did get into it - and so did
they...)

    :-)

> -- 
> AIM: FlyersR1 9
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _ = m

Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield|  (770) 985-6132   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/   |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9  |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471|  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: back button broken (wired.com) in 0.9.9?

[michael lefevre]

In article <a6r4a7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Parish wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Also, 0.9.9 still has lots of problems in properly displaying text at many
>> sites (e.g. news.bbc.co.uk).
> 
> Example URLs? news.bbc.co.uk looks just fine to me

that's odd - still rather messed up for me.  

the page is dynamic, but look at news.bbc.co.uk right now, the "sports
news" and the two items under "top stories around the UK" all have text
overlapping content in the column to the right of them.  selecting the
text in those boxes with the mouse highlights an area which is confined
to the central column, and does not relate to the text i'm dragging over.

i believe there is a detailed description and screenshots attached to the
bugzilla report.

-- 
michael

Re: 0.9.9 and null host mappings

[michael lefevre]

In article <Kv7k8.42076$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, TazMainiac
wrote:
[snip]
> What I really want is for Mozilla to support regular expression
> ad-banner blocking: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78104

that would indeed be very cool.

> Of course, the nice thing about the HOSTS file is that it
> blocks everything, cookies, web bugs (invisible gif's),
> etc.

you forgot redirected images... currently quite a few sites can evade the
filtering by using a URL of http://viewed.site/rd?http://ad.site/blah
and then having http://viewed.site/rd simply perform an HTTP redirect to
ad.site, which then serves the ad.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69486

-- 
michael

Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 02:45:07PM +0100, Pascal Chevrel wrote:

> Peter Lairo a dit :
> >Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> >>>Um, this isn't like the US is saying "Ok, Italy you can't have this 
> >>>software".  Look at the countries that are banned.  Geez
> >>
> >>
> >>"Oh, it's OK, it's only Libya, and everyone knows all Libyans are evil"?
> >>
> >>I strongly disagree with this attitude. You should not discriminate 
> >>against an individual based on what country they are from.
> >
> >
> >If a person lives in a country that threatens the peace of other 
> >countries, then that person either should leave that country or live 
> >with the consequences of staying there.
> >
> >There must be a healthy and dynamic balance between general protection 
> >of the population (restrictive laws) and individual rights (lack of 
> >restrictive laws). Neither extreme is good. ;)

> May I remind you that many democratic countries do not agree with the 
> USA about this list of "enemies" ? Moreover, I do not see why a free, 
> international and open source project should be ruled by any American 
> commercial export law.

Well, it would help if some of you would read the regulations
(I have).  Those regulations have rather explicit exemptions for
open source projects, the binaries that are based on them, and the
sites which host them.  Specifically, and explicitly, sites which
host cryptography in source form or based on freely available sources,
are exempt from the "safe harbor" (aka "cover your ass" announcements
and due diligence practices) and "know your customer" (identification
and tracking) requirements.  In other words, you as a site operator,
do NOT have to take any measures to restrict who can download from your
site or even recognize or know where the downloads are going to.  The
only requirements on the ORIGINAL sites hosting cryptography is to
send a message to the BXA notifying them that the site is hosting
cryptography.  Nothing more.  You don't even have to tell them what
cryptography or provide them with copies (unlike the commercial stuff
which has much stricter regulations).  Mirror sites are even exempt
from the notification requirements.  The notice on the Mozilla site
is NOT required in any way shape or form in the regulations.  Some
lawyers have recommended these notices as sort of a "cover your ass"
action but they are not part of the regulations themselves.  If it
WERE commercial or encumbered software or if the sources were not
available, then it would be a different matter.  That may be why
some lawyers are recommending some of these announcements even
though they are not required.

While the regulations in total are pretty thick, the sections
which apply to open source software are reasonably readable.  I'll
posted pointers to the appropriate chapter and vers on the government
site later (I don't have the at my finger tips at the moment).

> Pascal

Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield|  (770) 985-6132   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/   |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9  |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471|  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: 0.9.9 and null host mappings

[michael lefevre]

In article <6xLj8.35076$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, TazMainiac wrote:
> I have a HOSTS file that maps many ad servers to 0.0.0.0
> (see http://www.smartin-designs.com).
> 
> In versions of Mozilla prior to 0.9.9, this worked wonderfully.

it did?  i had dialogs popping up all over the place in 0.9.7 and .9.8
just the same...

> Now in 0.9.9, I'm getting "The connection was refused when 
> attempting to contact " pop-up.  This is *highly* 
> annoying.  How do I stop it?

you can't stop those pop-ups.  there is a RFE filed to change the pop-ups
into placeholder pages, which should sort things out if and when it gets
implemented - http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28586

as a workaround, what you can do is point the hosts entries at the IP of
a webserver that exists (maybe you have one running on your local
network, or run one yourself?) - then mozilla will get 404s back from
that server, instead of connection refused messages, and you won't get
the annoying dialogs.

-- 
michael

Re: is bugzilla.mozilla.org down?

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geraint Edwards wrote:
> I just tried accessing bugzilla to file a new 0.9.9 bug and the server 
> appears to be down.  Can anyone else reach the webserver?

it does appear to be down, yes. i'm getting "connection refused".

haven't managed to get 0.9.9 yet either - the main site is going really
slowly and the mirrors i've just tried don't have 0.9.9 yet (in fact, one
of the UK mirrors seems to be stuck back at 0.9.3)

think i'll leave it for now and try again later when things have calmed
down...

-- 
michael

Re: problems with hotmail "view source" mozilla 0.9.8

[michael lefevre]

In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Denis
Perelyubskiy wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Thanks for the quick response. Other browsers also fetch the
> new page for this feature. I think I might've not been
> clear, sorry. By "View Source" I meant clicking on the link
> present in the individual email message view in hotmail.
> The link itself is called "View Message Source" or something
> of that nature. Typically, browsers will just open a new
> page with a source of an email message (full headers and
> such), but with mozilla, I get redirected to the login page
>:(
> 
> I dont think this was the same thing you were referring
> to, or was it?

no, it wasn't.  he meant the "view source" command in mozilla, which
shows the HTML source of the page.

i know hotmail has various issues when it doesn't get HTTP referrer
from the browser.  it's also heavy on jscript aimed at IE.  maybe there's
something different about the way mozilla handles the script, or with the
referrer?  just guessing here...

-- 
michael

Re: Content Type for .css files

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Jens Hatlak wrote:
>> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>> However, this is only the case for pages using the strict mode.
>>> It works for others, so a doctype like this can be used and the 
>>> stylesheet will work:
>>> 
>>> (I hope I remember correctly...(
> 
>> The problem is not the Strict mode but the URL. 
> 
> Eh, the URL triggers the Strict Mode.
> And there are doctypes without URLs that trigger strict mode as well, afaik.

what he meant was that it wasn't a strict doctype.

you can trigger strict mode by using a strict doctype, but strict mode is
also used to render non-strict documents in a strictly non-strict way if
they have a non-strict doctype including a URL.

i'm not sure if it's officially called "strict mode", but it's a dumb
name to use in any case, because it has little to do with HTML strict.
calling it "standards-compliant mode" would avoid confusion between the
HTML Strict standard and mozilla's "strict" (i.e. compliant) mode,
which can apply to documents which are not written in HTML Strict.

-- 
michael

Re: ¿A NEW THEME?

[Michael A. Koenecke]

Lancer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> You are right, i will be fix those things. I was thinking in PRT for 
> print and about the "FDW" you are totally right, FWD looks far more
> starndar 
> 
> The K may be is more for Netscape, is "keywords".
> 
> and for search... i stll dont know what looks better, SCH? SRH? SER? 
> SEA? :-P Any ideas?

I like it too, and would like to use it. I agree with "PRT" for Print 
(though being able to joke about a "Porn" button has its merits) and FWD 
for Forward; I would vote for SCH for Search.

Re: New Skin for 1.0

[michael lefevre]

In article <a6alvk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bamm Gabriana wrote:
>> I agree when it is released in 2003.
> 
> The delayed release of 0.9.9 will not delay the release of 1.0
> because 0.9.9 is on a branch while 1.0 is on the trunk. The
> code for each is being worked on separately.

well yes, but there still needs to be something of a gap between the
release of 0.9.9 and the freeze for 1.0, otherwise there's not much point
in having 0.9.9.  you need time for people to use 0.9.9 so you can get
the feedback and use it to improve 1.0.

according to schedule, the freeze for 1.0 is less than 3 weeks away.
 
> I personally don't mind delaying the release of 1.0 for a few
> weeks. In particular, I don't want 1.0 to be released until
> the annoying minimize-restore issue has been settled.

that's certainly an annoying one.  i'm worried about the fact that view
source is broken (40867/55583) and seems to need big changes - i do hope
that doesn't slip past 1.0

> It's a two sided coin: we all want it to be out soon otherwise
> IE will dominate even more. But it will defeat the purpose if
> we hurry up to release something that is, in my opinion,
> something that is not yet quite ready for the market.

i've never been able to take statements like this very seriously...
mozilla isn't going to "the market" - netscape 6.x is what goes to
market, and in that sense, mozilla 0.6 (iirc), 0.9.1 and other old
(rather lame) versions have already "gone to market"

if you're worried about netscape vs IE, then it's too late to worry about
release something not ready for market - netscape 6 was out 16 months ago
and, not to put too fine a point on it, it sucked rocks... in terms of
the netscape market, mozilla 1.0 is going to be a point upgrade (i
believe)

-- 
michael

Re: Mozilla 1.0: Ready for the corporate desktop?

[Michael A. Koenecke]

Netscape Basher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C88BD63.8040704
@netscape.net:

> Netscape's browser used to be light and zippy, but now it's heavy and 
> sluggish. The current version on my computer, Netscape 6.2e (an 
> enterprise version not markedly different than the consumer one), takes 
> up five times as much memory as Internet Explorer does. Hell, it even 
> takes up more memory than my operating system. Needless to say, it also 
> crashes frequently. Netscape is so bad that I would no longer use it, 
> except that as an AOL employee, I'm forced to. Time Inc. (the AOL 
> subsidiary I work for) recently switched its corporate e-mail to 
> Netscape Mail, which can be used only with the Netscape browser.

First thing: this fellow is so clueless he does not know that the vast 
bulk of Internet Explorer's memory usage is hidden within the operating 
system. Second thing: what kind of garbage configuration does this idiot 
have? Mozilla pops up pretty darned quick on my machine and renders pages 
faster than IE 5.5, and I do not have Quick Launch enabled. I only bother 
keeping an IE menu entry around for the (more and more) rare occurrence 
of a (FrontPage created) Web site that needs it.

Re: Favaicons

[Michael A. Koenecke]

dman84 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> WDA wrote:
>> Using Mozilla 0.9.8, can someone tell me how to turn on favaicons?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
> 
> read 0.9.8 release notes for starters.
> 

Specifically, the relevant portion says:

# Mozilla no longer reads /favicon.ico images by default although Mozilla 
still reads page icons defined with the  tag. Set the following 
pref to turn the feature back on.

user_pref("browser.chrome.favicons",true);

Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce "not found" errors

[michael lefevre]

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.

i guess you could replace "127.0.0.1" in the above with the address of
the corporate web site or something, so mozilla will give 404 errors in
the page instead of the annoying popups.  or you could install some kind
of simple web service on your machine.

but i agree that the popups can be annoying.  one site i visit has an
image with a typo in the tag.  IE and netscape 4 just ignore it silently,
but mozilla insists on popping up an error to tell me it can't reach the
site.

this would, i think, be fixed by one of the most-duped and most-voted
bugs, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28586

-- 
michael

Re: Multiple home pages in rotation

[Michael A. Koenecke]

"Neil M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C8509F5.6070809
@sympatico.ca:

> Chris Newman wrote:
>> Hiya,
>> Mozilla is absolutely superb. Anyone think that having a feature
>> where you can select multiple home pages would be a good idea ? I'd
>> like Mozilla to rotate on a new browser through a list of home pages,
>> eg. news.com, oreillynet.com, mozilla.org, java.sun.com etc. etc.
>> rather than just always being stuck with one home page all the time.
> 
> Couldn't you just put a line of javascript in there to pick a random 
> number between 1 and n and then depending on the number display a 
> different page?
> 
> Bah, I'll just program it here...
> 
> javascript:a = Math.round(Math.random() * 3);if (a == 1) { 
> document.location="http://www.mozillanews.org";} else if (a == 2) { 
> document.location="http://mozilla.org";} else { 
> document.location="http://www.mozillazine.org";}
> 
> Testing yeah it works.

Interesting. How would one go about putting such a script in one's Home 
location in Mozilla?

Japanese search engines only?

[John Michael Norvell]

Why does my Mozilla (0.9.4) have only Japanese search engines in the
option box? How can I change this?

John Norvell

Re: Problem site? www.cox.com

[Michael A. Koenecke]

Erik Harris  wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> I can't seem to access www.cox.com in Mozilla 0.97.  It works fine in
> Netscape (4.78), but I've tried multiple times to access it in Moz,
> and I get "The connection was refused when attempting to contact
> www.cox.com" 
> 
> I know this has happened in the past when a site was too busy or
> something, but it consistently works with Netscape, and consistently
> doesn't work with Moz, at least for the last 10 minutes.

I'm using the 2/25/2002 build (0.9.8+) and that site pops right up, just 
fine.

Re: linux java plugin

[John Michael Norvell]

Thanks one and all for the tips.

John

linux java plugin

[John Michael Norvell]

I don't really understand what I'm being asked to download and install
for JRE 1.3. I installed the java runtime environment when I installed
Linux (SuSE 7.3). Is the plugin the whole JRE again or just a plugin to
work with Mozilla/Netscape 6?

John Norvell

problem printing images

[John Michael Norvell]

When I print pages with in-line images, mozilla puts a black background
on them.  Anybody have any idea why?

John Norvell

Re: Content Type for .css files

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sören Kuklau wrote:
> 
> Is Netscape Online UK affiliated with AOLTW's Netscape (Netscape 
> Communications)? I wasn't able to find any information on a company 
> called "Netscape Online" located in the UK on Google.

i don't believe they are offering new signups since AOL launched an
unmetered service with their own brand name.

but yes, netscape online is/was a joint venture between AOL and someone
else.  http://www.netscapeonline.co.uk/ will take you to the netscape
UK homepage.

when i tried googling, their free CD give away even brought up something
on mozillazine:
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=749
which is a interesting historical read...

> If that is the case, then this is quite ironic - after all, Netscape 
> originally launched the Mozilla project.

indeed.

> That is quite a reason for not to use this ISP any longer. Translate it 
> to "all we really do care about is to get your money".
> 
>> 2.  Unfortunately your queries bare no relevance to Netscape Online,
> 
> Oh yes they do, unless Netscape Online doesn't want customers that 
> actually know how to write html with css properly.

well they don't really want customers any more... new customers would be
offered the AOL branded access instead.

>> These are the people who actually produce the Netscape Communicator / 
>> Mozilla software and will be able to assist you further.
> 
> Makes me wonder if the person who replied to your e-mail did even know 
> what css is.

probably not - the message needs to get across to a techie that deals
with the server, not a customer service agent.

-- 
michael

Re: Full Screen

[michael]

psmith wrote:
> 
> michael wrote:
> 
> >OK, so I'm slow. I just discovered the full screen option.
> >
> >Thank you, thank you, thank you.
> >
> >It seems perfect but I'll give it a real workout later tonight.
> >
> >michael
> >
> It needs to have a tiny Bookmarks button too; there's already plenty of
> space for the URL.

Yhat would be nice but I don't mind using the toggle to full and back.

michael

Re: Bugzilla and search engines

[michael lefevre]

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...

> But it isn't so! All the web is being indexed all the time, and I don't 
> hear a lot of webmaster shouting that their servers are in flames. I 
> think this is very much like FUD, with no factual backing.

i haven't experienced it (our webserver gets a couple of hundred hits
from google each month, out of a total of over 150,000), but i have seen
webmasters shouting about their servers being in flames, as a result of
search engines sucking on dynamic content which was intensive to
generate...

i can't comment on the position with respect to the bugzilla.mozilla.org
server, i'm just guessing as to why they might have put that robots.txt
in - i'm sure it wasn't for no reason at all...

-- 
michael

Re: Bugzilla and search engines

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>>> Well if there are only seconds and no objections I think it should be 
>>> done. Somebody could just "rm robotx.txt"...
>> This is not a good idea. Google's index of a bug would rapidly go out of 
>> date.
> 
> That's not a problem, because all Google needs to provide a search 
> result is to have some keywords of that bug, then it will just link to 
> the original source. Besides, Google is very smart at detecting which 
> pages should be indexed frequently.

that itself may be an issue.  google will detect the frequent changes to
bugzilla's dynamic pages, and revisit them often.  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)...

> Again, this is not reinventing. Someone at mozilla.org has taken a small 
> extra effort to prevent Google from indexing and providing an useful 
> service to the community.
> 
> Anyway, what's wrong with having choices?

nothing, as long as providing the choices isn't unnecessarily detrimental
to something else... seems to me that improving the search tool bugzilla
provides, and beefing up the database server so the queries happen
faster, would be the ideal solution.

-- 
michael

Re: Mozilla Becomes Very Very Slow while display Website

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Yeh You-Ying wrote:
>> But why can IE5 go through with http v1.1 in the same situation ?
> 
> It can't. I'm 99.9% sure that MSIE always uses 1.0 for proxy servers.

well it can do it, but wouldn't be doing it unless you told it to...

IE defaults to using HTTP 1.0 when using a proxy, although this can be
changed.

mozilla defaults to HTTP 1.1, but this too can be changed.

-- 
michael

Re: download manager

[michael]

Orrin Edenfield wrote:
> 
> You also might try right clicking on the download image or the link to
> download and select "copy."  I use Getright and lots of times Getright
> monitors the clipboard and when you copy something it goes in the
> clipboard and then Getright gets it.
> 
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
> 
> > Skylark wrote:
> >
> >> my download manager cannot seem to jump in and take the download with
> >> Mozilla.  even when I try and hold the Control and Alt buttons.  how
> >> do I get My getright to work with Mozilla 098 32 bit.  thanks.
> >>
> >
> > this is a known issue. try to drop links to the getright drop target
> > manually.
> >
> 
> --
> Orrin Edenfield  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -  www.orrinrule.com

My experience is that what works that way will also drag-and-drop. It's
when the "copy" or "drag-drop" results in HTML being copied or
downloaded that can be a problem; lot's of those . Then my little
dance works, though, and all is well.

Now, if only my access provider would solve their modem problems so I
don't get dropped so often . . .

michael

Re: download manager

[michael]

Stan Lee wrote:
> 
> Holger Metzger wrote:
> 
> > Skylark wrote:
> >
> >
> >>my download manager cannot seem to jump in and take the download with
> >>Mozilla.  even when I try and hold the Control and Alt buttons.  how do
> >>I get My getright to work with Mozilla 098 32 bit.  thanks.
> >>
> >
> > Try a different Downloader program, for example
> > <http://www.stardownloader.com>, it comes with a plugin for Mozilla
> > browsers:  <http://www.stardownloader.com/plugins/ndplugin.zip>
> >
> 
> getright has a plugin also
> 
> GetRight has a Plug-In for the Opera, Netscape 6, and Mozilla web
> browsers. This allows some of the same "Click Monitoring" to make using
> GetRight to download as easy as clicking within your web browser.
> 
> see http://www.getright.com/opera.html

  I had not noticed that such a plugin was available. Thanks for
mentioning it.  (!!)  I'm off to get it now. . . 

michael

Re: download manager

[michael]

Sören Kuklau wrote:
> 
> Skylark wrote:
> > my download manager cannot seem to jump in and take the download with
> > Mozilla.  even when I try and hold the Control and Alt buttons.  how do
> > I get My getright to work with Mozilla 098 32 bit.  thanks.
> >
> 
> this is a known issue. try to drop links to the getright drop target
> manually.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Also, 
When a link only wants to DL some HTML, I:
  1. Start the download
  2. Highlight the download address in the progress box
  3. Drag highlighted Address to the GetRite drop box
  4. Click save
  5. Cancel the first download and use only the GetRite one.

Sounds a bit complicated but it's not all that bad.

michael

Re: Filtering / Message rules better in Outlook Express?

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonas
Jørgensen wrote:
> David Tenser wrote:
>> Thanks for clearing this up for me! I have now successfully unjarred 
>> chrome (whatever that means).
> 
> JAR files are like ZIP files. 

in fact, i think it is true that JAR files _are_ ZIP files.

if you simply rename a .jar file to .zip, it will open with winzip or
whatever other unzipping utility you'd care to use.

-- 
michael

Re: Movable, customizable toolbars.

[michael]

Blake Ross wrote:
> 
> > If not, why put so much effort in supporting skins in Mozilla? Truth is,
> > most of the users doesn't care much of skin support in a browser.
> 
> Who is putting "so much effort"?  No one that I can see.  You admitted
> you're new here, why are you making such presumptions?
> 
> > My initial point was that there is much effort in making Mozilla
> > skinnable, with a solid API foundation to work with, but most users
> > would benefit from customizable toolbars instead of skins.
> 
> "Most users" would benefit from neither. I doubt most people have moved
> or customized the toolbars in any program.
> 
> Blake
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Not necessarily.  I REALLY like the option to "make my own" toolbar in
"NoteTab Lite." I don't even mind, too much, that I only have the option
of using icons to do it. 

What I'd really like to see, and I expect it will be available
eventually, is the choice to use icons and labels or just labels (some
would want to use just icons). Right now my personal toolbar is jammed
and I've had to REALLY shorten the folder names; in 4.x it's fine
because I've selected "no icons."

Also, while I'm here, multi column bookmarks instead of scrolling -
drives me  k R a Z y.

michael

Re: 0.9.8 and news.bbc.co.uk

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David King wrote:
> michael lefevre wrote:
>> just upgraded from 0.9.7 and now http://news.bbc.co.uk/ looks rather
>> screwy (fonts too large for the spaces they are in - selecting the text
>> selects the area where the text should be, not where it is - first page
>> load all the news was in a large font, on reloading the page only the
>> "around the world now" section was affected.
> I see the large font problem, which is fixed by hitting the reload 
> button, except as you note the "around the world" section.
> 
> I'd suggest you file a bug report on this.

i would, except it appears that's already been done - in fact there seem
to be two bugs - one shows as a layout bug (targeted at 1.2 :( ), and the
other as an evangelism bug pointing out problems with the site's
coding...

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116273
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122533

even if it is a problem with the coding, the text selection/wrapping that
mozilla uses should match the font it is displaying...

-- 
michael

0.9.8 and news.bbc.co.uk

[michael lefevre]

just upgraded from 0.9.7 and now http://news.bbc.co.uk/ looks rather
screwy (fonts too large for the spaces they are in - selecting the text
selects the area where the text should be, not where it is - first page
load all the news was in a large font, on reloading the page only the
"around the world now" section was affected.

does this happen to others? is this a mozilla problem or a problem with
the site?

i'm using:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204

-- 
michael

Re: Ho to masquerade Mozilla?

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel R.
Tobias wrote:
[snip]
> That's actually the approach that browser makers have been taking most
> of the time when they design their user-agent strings... it's gone on
> for several "generations", which is why many browsers have such
> convoluted strings with multiple misleading names in them, like:
> 
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; WhizBangBrowser 1.12b)
> 
> which is WhizBangBrowser 1.12b pretending to be MSIE 5.0 pretending to
> be Netscapre 4.0.
> 
> I guess you could take this one generation further by taking one of
> those strings and appending yet another browser name, maybe off to the
> right side after the right parenthesis, that would be the *real*
> browser name

you certainly could... it's been done:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 2000) Opera 5.12 [en]
is (i think) the default for Opera 5.12

> at least until *that* browser catches on so much that
> some other Brand X takes that whole string and appends something
> else...

indeed. this is obviously not a good way to go - I haven't used it, but
it appears from their docs that Opera 6 actually identifies itself as
(for example)
Opera/6.0 (Windows XP; U) [en] 
by default... but i could be wrong.

-- 
michael

Re: Problems sending images in email inline with Netscape.

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
> 
>>> Does Mozilla add the word "Mozilla" to file type descriptions? I never 
>>> noticed that. I think you should file a bug.
>> 
>> You mean stuff like "Mozilla Portable Network Graphic Image" for .png? 
>> Yes, it does that for everything it's registered with. This is expected 
>> behaviour for me. You can change it in the windows file type associations.
> 
> Expected behavior? Why?

because that's how most Windows applications do it, including Windows
itself and the other Microsoft apps.

> It isn't a MozillaPNG image, it's just a PNG image.

it's an image which is associated with the Mozilla app.  At least Mozilla
identifies the type of file as well, most apps will just call the file
something like "Microsoft Word Document", and you can't then tell which
it is of the formats the program handles...

-- 
michael

Re: Is there a way to read mail as text and not HTML?

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>>if you you use html if you need to emphasize a
>> word, phrase, or paragraphic you can.
>> to do so now in plain text I have to use "quote marks" to do so
> 
> Well, using *asterisks* or _underlines_ (maybe /slashes/) is more 
> common, afaict.

indeed... and my newsreader (slrn) recognises all three of those and
highlights them with bold or colour (what it does is configurable) -
maybe someone could suggest that for mozilla?

-- 
michael

Re: Is there a way to read mail as text and not HTML?

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 05:00:56PM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
> Preferences->Advanced, uncheck "Enable Javascript for Mail and 
> Newsgroups".  Unless I am missing something, I have never heard of a 
> vulnerability that can be exploited without javascript...

What about those annoying spam auto refresh bounces.  Don't yah
just love it when your boss walks up just as your E-Mail bounces you to
some spammers porno site...

Okkk...  An there there are web bugs.  The little goodies that
pull a special identifying image from their web site identifying your
E-Mail address as a good one and worth putting on their platinum "we've
qualified this address as good" list that they sell to other spammers.
Reading spam in an HTML enabled reader is an incredibly good way to
increase your spam traffic.  The more you get the more you are qualified.

Then there is version two of the web bugs.  Images on anonymous
ftp sites where your browser delivers your E-Mail address to the anonftp
site for addition to a spammer list.  (Ok...  That one doesn't work NEARLY
as well as the one above since a lot of browsers don't supply an E-Mail
address in the password for anonymous ftp).  Quite a few spammers use
both techniques in combination.

No...  There is plenty of mayhem that trouble makers can do without
resorting to Java or Javascript.  Unfortunately.

HTML is simply inappropriate in E-Mail.

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:12:18 +1030, David Simpson
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm obviously not one of your clients then. The only HTML mail I
> >>receive is SPAM and I don't want that at all. Plain text for me every
> >>day.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Thank you YES
> >
> >I also think that the HTML opens you up to certain vulnerabilities.
> >Is there a simple HTML that can be implemented?  So some people can
> >have their colored 24 point fonts with italics without the whole web
> >page layout stuff.
> >
> >Scoobie
> >
> 

-- 
 Michael H. Warfield|  (770) 985-6132   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/   |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9  |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471|  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Toolbar Customization Spec!

[michael lefevre]

after a quick query...
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49543#c77

In article <a2d080$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sören Kuklau wrote:
> What is the corresponding bug #, if I may ask?
> 
> "yatsu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:a22291$106b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=65067
>>
>> !!
> 
> 


-- 
michael

Re: Fetching of /favicon.ico disabled

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Hyatt wrote:
> Yep.  Since I doubt I'll have time to focus on the remaining bugs in the 
> implementation before Mozilla 1.0, it has been disabled in Mozilla and 
> will remain disabled for 1.0 (unless interested parties other than 
> myself are willing to tackle and fix the remaining issues).

cool.  personally when things shake out, i'd like to see the default
behaviour be to get an icon indicated with a  but not
checking for \favicon.ico, and have both configurable with prefs... and
with working caching of course...

and does this mean you still have a job? ;-)

-- 
michael

Re: Help, my mail disappeared

[Michael Bower]

Fulvio,

I tried what you suggested, sort of.  I took ALL the .msf files on my c:
drive (which is in my path) and moved them (to save them) to a d: drive.

I then deleted all the .msf files on C:.

So not seeing my mail.

Is there some sort of "restore" function in Mozilla?

Or am I just out of luck?  (Gosh, I hope not.  May be time to change
back to NS 4.7.)

Thanks.

Michael


Fulvio Perini wrote:
> 
> Michael Bower wrote:
> 
> > I was told this is the place to ask this question:
> >
> > Background - I am running build 0.9.4 and don't want to change until I
> > can resolve this issue.  (Unless getting 0.9.7 will fix the problem.).
> > I am also running Win 98 SE.
> >
> > I've been using build 0.9.4 since mid October last year.  A couple of
> > quirks but mostly stable.  Has never given me any great problems.
> >
> > Sunday morning, I fired up my connection to my ISP, got my new mail,
> > answered a few and logged off.  Around 9:30, I had to reboot but
> > shutdown went fine.
> >
> > Late afternoon, I fired up my connection to my ISP and started Mozilla.
> >
> > When I started Mozilla, it showed me the list of profiles and I picked
> > my main one.  (The others are for testing some other things.)
> >
> > Now it gets crazy.
> >
> > Mozilla gives me the impression that it doesn't know anything about the
> > details of this profile.  The first thing I noticed was that it came up
> > in "navigator" mode.  I did have it set to come up in "mail" mode.
> >
> > Then it came up in a Wizard to fill in the rest of the info it needed.
> > It's like it knew about the existance of the profile but the content of
> > the profile is gone.
> >
> > Now, here's more bizarreness.  it looks like my structure is still
> > there.  Where the profiles seem to be kept, I see my mailbox folders.  I
> > see inbox which you would expect but I also see my other mail folders.
> >
> > Here's the questions:
> >
> > 1) What happened?  Is this a known anomoly?
> >
> > 2) More importantly, how do I get it to recognize the mailboxes and are
> > still sitting on my system.  I have 3 months of mail in the mailbox
> > (this is my "tickler" file if you know what that is) and lots of new
> > e-mail addresses that I don't really want to lose.
> >
> > ANybody got any ideas on what I should do now?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for ANY help you can offer.
> >
> > Michael Bower
> >
> > --
> > 73 de N4NMR
> > Michael Bower
> > Ashburn, VA (near Washington, D.C.)
> 
> Mozilla0.9.4 is a step behind NS6.2.Why would it do what it did to you is
> beyond my comprehension.You mentioned Inbox,but what about Inbox.msf.Delete
> every .msf file which you can find,and it will be rebuilt.Those files are
> responsible for disappearing mail.Try Mozilla0.9.6,it has worked for me
> quite well.
> See a post of mine,following yours.

-- 
73 de N4NMR
Michael Bower
Ashburn, VA (near Washington, D.C.)

Re: page not loading in Netscape ...

[Michael Redbourn]

thanks.

Mike

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:13:08 -0500, Lucas MacBride
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Michael Redbourn wrote:
>
>> Sorry about the post then,but thanks for letting me know that you can
>> view it in v6.
>> 
>> I'll check out the validator.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:15:54 +0100, Jonas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgensen?=
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Michael Redbourn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>and it looks fine viewed in IE or Opera but doesn't even load in
>>>>Netscape, I can see it in Composer but not in Navigator.
>>>>
>>>This newsgroup is about the Mozilla project, not about Netscape 4.x. 
>>>Your page loads fine in Mozilla/Netscape 6.
>>>
>>>That said, it might help if you used valid HTML. <http://validator.w3.org/>
>>>-- 
>>>/Jonas
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer
>> to the problem of human existence.
>> 
>> ~ Erich Fromm 
>> 
>> Home Page   http://run.to/redbourn
>> Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>
>You might also want to look into the HTML Tidy program, which automates 
>lots of HTML cleanup:
>
>http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/
>
>I use TidyGUI for initial cleanup then test it with validator.w3.org
>
>And if you're really in the mood for perfection, run your pages through 
>Bobby so that they also work for people with disabilities:
>
>http://www.cast.org/bobby/
>


Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer
to the problem of human existence.

~ Erich Fromm 

Home Page   http://run.to/redbourn
Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: page not loading in Netscape ...

[Michael Redbourn]

Sorry about the post then,but thanks for letting me know that you can
view it in v6.

I'll check out the validator.

Mike

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:15:54 +0100, Jonas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgensen?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Michael Redbourn wrote:
>
>> and it looks fine viewed in IE or Opera but doesn't even load in
>> Netscape, I can see it in Composer but not in Navigator.
>
>This newsgroup is about the Mozilla project, not about Netscape 4.x. 
>Your page loads fine in Mozilla/Netscape 6.
>
>That said, it might help if you used valid HTML. <http://validator.w3.org/>
>-- 
>/Jonas
>


Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer
to the problem of human existence.

~ Erich Fromm 

Home Page   http://run.to/redbourn
Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

page not loading in Netscape ...

[Michael Redbourn]

Hi,

I just built a page and published it on my brand new site this morning
http://www.brazilbook.info

and it looks fine viewed in IE or Opera but doesn't even load in
Netscape, I can see it in Composer but not in Navigator.

Looking different - OK. 

Not loading?!

Could you please tell me what's causing the problem.

many thanks,

Mike



A Year In Brazil



















  


  

  

  


  



    

A day by day
journal of life in Brazil, from Curitiba in the South,
to
Oiapoque on the French Guyanese
border.

And back along the coast to
Sao Paulo.

By buses, boats, and light
aircraft.

An Anglo-American traveller
living and
working with Brazilians.

Spans one year, and includes
photos. 

Live it! Enjoy it
!




  

  


http://www.hitmatic.com/h4/jump.cgi?user=21878";
target="_top">
var js=0;var qs='';js=13;
if(!js)js=12;qs+='&sx='+screen.width+'&sy='+screen.height+'&sd='+((navigator.appName.indexOf("Netscape")<0)?screen.colorDepth+'&cp='+navigator.cpuClass:screen.pixelDepth);
if(!js)js=11;qs+='&je='+(1*navigator.javaEnabled());
if(!js)js=10;qs+='&dr='+escape(top.document.referrer);qs+='&js='+js+'&tz='+(1000-(new
Date()).getTimezoneOffset())+'/';document.write('http://tracker.hitmatic.com/21878/?page=MainPage&mp=1'+qs+'"
border=0 alt="[Tracked by Hitmatic]">');
http://tracker.hitmatic.com/21878/?page=MainPage&mp=1";>






  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>contact:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  

 
 
  



  



  
SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY
E-BOOK OFFER
 $1.00 
 FOR THE FIRST 1000
PURCHASES
(Needs IE 4 or later -
1.7MB)
  


  

  
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr";
method="post">







http://www.brazibook.info/purchasepage.htm";>

http://images.paypal.com/images/x-click-butcc.gif"; border="0"
name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and
secure!">

 https://www.paypal.com/affil/pal=redbourn%40run.to";
target="_blank">http://images.paypal.com/images/lgo/logo1.gif"; BORDER="0"
ALT="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"
width="468" height="60">

  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr";
method="post">







http://www.brazilbook.info/purchasepage.htm";>



http://images.paypal.com/images/x-click-but01.gif"; border="0"
name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and
secure!">
 

  

  

  




Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer
to the problem of human existence.

~ Erich Fromm 

Home Page   http://run.to/redbourn
Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional Code and CSS

[michael lefevre]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Hoess wrote:
> 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).

http://www.apacheweek.com/features/guide13 suggests that the text/css
type was added into the apache 1.3.4 release in March 1999...

-- 
michael

Help, my mail disappeared

[Michael Bower]

I was told this is the place to ask this question:

Background - I am running build 0.9.4 and don't want to change until I
can resolve this issue.  (Unless getting 0.9.7 will fix the problem.). 
I am also running Win 98 SE.

I've been using build 0.9.4 since mid October last year.  A couple of
quirks but mostly stable.  Has never given me any great problems.

Sunday morning, I fired up my connection to my ISP, got my new mail,
answered a few and logged off.  Around 9:30, I had to reboot but
shutdown went fine.

Late afternoon, I fired up my connection to my ISP and started Mozilla.

When I started Mozilla, it showed me the list of profiles and I picked
my main one.  (The others are for testing some other things.)

Now it gets crazy.

Mozilla gives me the impression that it doesn't know anything about the
details of this profile.  The first thing I noticed was that it came up
in "navigator" mode.  I did have it set to come up in "mail" mode.

Then it came up in a Wizard to fill in the rest of the info it needed. 
It's like it knew about the existance of the profile but the content of
the profile is gone.

Now, here's more bizarreness.  it looks like my structure is still
there.  Where the profiles seem to be kept, I see my mailbox folders.  I
see inbox which you would expect but I also see my other mail folders.

Here's the questions:

1) What happened?  Is this a known anomoly?

2) More importantly, how do I get it to recognize the mailboxes and are
still sitting on my system.  I have 3 months of mail in the mailbox
(this is my "tickler" file if you know what that is) and lots of new
e-mail addresses that I don't really want to lose.

ANybody got any ideas on what I should do now?

Thanks in advance for ANY help you can offer.

Michael Bower

-- 
73 de N4NMR
Michael Bower
Ashburn, VA (near Washington, D.C.)

Pardon the intrusion

[Michael Bower]

Please pardon the intrusion as this is my first post here.  Please be
gentle.

Is this the correct forum for asking support questions?  I had Mozilla
(0.9.4?) get lost yesterday and I want to get back my mail etc.

If this is the proper forum, I'll post more details.

if this is not the proper forum, could you point me in the right
direction.

Again, we thank you for the interruption and now return you to... oops,
wrong show.

Michael Bower
 
-- 
73 de N4NMR
Michael Bower
Ashburn, VA (near Washington, D.C.)

Mozilla or JRE problem?

[Michael Godshall]

Hello,
 
When viewing http://www.dupageco.org/sheriff/
<http://www.dupageco.org/sheriff/>  the items in the menu on the left
are chopped in half horizontally.  
Is this a problem with the java-plugin or Mozilla?
 
I am using build 2002010703 on Win2K.  Page appears fine in IE 6.0.
My JRE version is 1.3.1
 
Can test on Linux 2002010703 later tonight if needed.
 
If a mozilla problem I could not find a bug field.  If one has been
filed that I could not find please say so.
 
 
 
 
Michael Godshall
Meridian Mobility
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
630-649-7918 office
630-649-7952 fax
 

Re: XML not rendered

[Michael Gratton]

Matthew Thomas wrote:

> 
> Please lose your fixation with Microsoft. This is nothing to do with
> what some company `thinks' a plain XML file looks like;


Hey, I have no such fixation; the above comment was made in the context 
of discussing the correctness of MSIE's behaviour when it renders an XML 
file which specifies no style. I don't believe that discussing whether 
it is correct or not constitutes a "fixation".

I was trying to point out that you were (at least trivially) wrong when 
you argued that IE's behaviour is correct because it does "... what 
people want and expect, instead of what they don't want or expect".

 > Showing it as an expandable

> tree would be a good idea, *for Mozilla*, no matter how Microsoft chose
> to display it.


Sure, I have no problem with that, but that was't what what being 
discussed, in that part of the post.

Geeze, you really need to lose your overraction fixation. ;)

> 
> That's exactly what View Source is for.
> 

So what is view source for when viewing a text file? What if a file 
containing XML or HTML markup is served as text/plain? Moz renders it as 
text and view source displays the same thing as the browser window.


The reason Moz applies style to HTML is because the style for HTML is 
well known. The HMTL REC defines and suggests style for HTML elements, 
and Moz can follow that. Moz can only apply style to XML if it too is 
well known (XHTML, SVG, MathML, etc) or if it is specified using, say, 
an xml-stylesheet PI. If it has neither then these, then sure, apply 
some default style to it. You can't call it correct though, and at least 
make it configurable, through a hidden pref or something similar to 
userStyle.css or userChrome.css, so people who (sanely enough) don't 
like their XML initially displayed as a tree can fix it.


Mike.

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: Offline Installation of Netscape 6.2.1

[Michael L. Arends]

Lisa wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> I am looking for a way to do a total-offline installation for Netscape
> 6.2.1
> 
> I am trying to do a Netscape 6.2.1 (Windows version) installation and
> I have downloaded ALL the files from the Windows directory (and all
> the files from all the subdirectories) but when I tried to install,
> the "setup" programs (two of them, one is setupA and one is setupB)

> all insisted that I go online to "finish" the installation process.
> What I need is a way to do TOTAL_OFFLINE installation of Netscape
> 6.2.1.
> 
> Has anyone here tried this before?



Well, here is how it worked 'for me'. I DID do the install thing once, but
when it was downloading, I told it to save the files locally when I got
that option.  It saved all the files in a 'setup' directory, buried in
the netscape installation directory.

Now, I backed up this whole directory, and later when I had to do a
complete new install I was able to do the whole thing off-line. It
never required me to have to be online. Except later when it wanted
to do the 'activation' thing.

-- 

/`\\\
       ( @ @ )
   *---ooO---(_)---Ooo---*
  /  Michael L. Arends ©  \
  | Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
  *---*

Re: Do AOLTW and netscape communications corperation care about the browser?

[Michael Gratton]

Johnny Yen wrote:

> 
> Here again, it's a helluva lot easier to throw a favicon into the root
> rather than ad   to hundreds and hundreds of pages just to
> get the same effect.


So how do you add the same background to all of your pages? favbg.ico?


-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: XML not rendered

[Michael Gratton]

Late reply, didn't see your post.. 8/

Matthew Thomas wrote:

> 
> By doing what people want and expect, instead of what they don't want or expect.
> 


Hmm, I don't know about you, but I don't want to see what MS thinks a 
plain XML file looks like, I'd prefer to see it as plain, orninary text, 
maybe w/ syntax highlighting.

> 
> Why?
> 


Mainly for the reason above.


-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Referer... Bad comments on Slashdot...

[Michael H. Warfield]

Hey all,

I just ran into a problem accessing a site linked from slashdot,
<http://www.colemanpowermate.com/fuelcell/airgen.shtml>, and got
slammed with an IIS security alert instead of the requested page.
I then found this remark down in the discussions on the slashdot
article:

] Hmmm... if you use Mozilla 0.9.5+ / Netscape 6.2 this doesn't happen
] from the Slashdot-to-Coleman link. I think I know why: Mozilla doesn't
] send HTTP_REFERER. At least, not that I can tell.

I think he had a typo in that first paragraph and it parsed
the exact opposite of what made sense...

] Friday I ran into trouble setting up a weblink to a credit card
] processor for one of our smaller sites. The card processor restricts
] connections based on HTTP_REFERER (great security scheme, no?) and I
] was getting an unexpected error while using Moz. Then I used Konq and
] IE, which worked fine. Testing on my own servers I noticed that Moz
] wasn't sending the header when I POSTED from one server to another.
]
] I don't have time to deal with this, other than to restrict
] Mozilla/Netscape 6.2 browsers from using the shopping cart for this
] site. Sucks.

Mozilla doesn't send HTTP_REFERER?  As a web server owner, I
would have to concure that SUCKS if true.  I don't use it for security
but I do use it for other things.  If that's breaking compatibility
with some sites, that's a definite bug, which I'll plug into bugzilla
later (maybe it's already there).  If it's not true, maybe someone
cluefull needs to post a response on the Coleman Fuelcell article.

Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield|  (770) 985-6132   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/   |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9  |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471|  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Minimum font size trouble again (FreeBSD/2001120507)

[Michael Gratton]

R.K.Aa. wrote:

> 
> Moz (as well as old NS4) will save prefs.js on exit and overwrite 
> anything that was manually edited in the meanwhile.

Which is why you want to put your custom prefs like this in "user.js", rather than 
"prefs.js". Moz reads that at startup but never writes to it.

Mike.


-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: Mac vs. PC

[Michael Gratton]

JJKC wrote:

> I have both a Mac (9.1) and a PC(98) on my home network, DSL line. Since 
> 0.9.6, the PC has gotten a big boost in the speed department, while the 
> Mac seems to be slower, if anything.  Anyone else notice this?

Have a look in n.p.m.porkjockies, at John Morrison's page load-time 
times. There was an upwards trend for som time, but it's been coming 
down at a near linear rate lately. Mac speeds are near that of Linux 
from a while back, and Linux speeds are around that of Windows a while 
ago. I'd say 0.9.7 should feel a lot faster, on all platforms.

Mike.

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: XML not rendered

[Michael Gratton]

Matthew Thomas wrote:

> 
> Therefore MSIE's behavior is more correct.

Splitting hairs: more *useful*, not more *correct*. How can you be correctly doing 
something that is undefined? 8)

> Cool but useless, since even amongst those users who liked to look at
> vanilla XML files (developers, mainly), a majority would not

Okay, okay, I'd still like to see it customizable, however. Maybe once Moz's XSLT 
support is up to it (if it isn't already) then having a default (but customizable) 
XSLT stylesheet to transform it into something pretty and renderable would work.

> `[RFE] Better Default layout for "vanilla" XML documents'
> .

Check. I should probably go have a read.


-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: XML not rendered

[Michael Gratton]

Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:

> 
> What Mozilla is doing now isn't more correct than what explorer does. 

Oh, I don't know about that. Web browsers apply somthing approaching the W3C's 
suggested style to HTML makrup when rendering it, which is obviously a good thing. But 
no-one as specified a "default" style for XML markup, precisely because you can't know 
how to render arbitary content.

If, however you are dealing with a well known and supported doctype, like SVG, MathML 
or similar, one which has defined style, then Moz is justified in rendering it using 
that style.

> And all things being equal, Explorer's behaviour is far more useful.

Initially, if you're trying to view an XML document, yes. But something like the DOM 
inspector is far more useful for "rendering" arbitary XML content, IMHO.

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: DOM Inspector enabled in mozilla nightly builds

[Michael Gratton]

Joe Hewitt wrote:

> As of tonight, the DOM Inspector tool will be built by default on all 
> three major platforms and included in the nightly builds (Mozilla only).

Fantastic! I would have to say that the DOM Inspector, combined with Venkmann, make 
Moz the ultimate tool for web developers.

The two make Moz so insanely great, it's making me froth at the mouth! See! I'm doing 
it already! 8)


Joe and everyone else who hacked at it, thank you, thank you! Thank you!

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Installation Language-package

[Michael Kollender]

Hey,
I just tried to install the German language, but it doesn't work. I get the 
following message:

stars:/user/download/mozilla # ./mozilla

Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server
Xlib: Invalid XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1 key (failed key comparison)

Gtk-WARNING **: cannot open display: :0.0

Does somebody knows this message and can tell me how I solve this problem?

My system: SuSE Linux 7.3 pro , KDE 2.2.1, Qt 2.3.1, Mozilla 0.96

Mike

Re: download

[Michael Kollender]

Michael Kollender wrote:

> Hey,
> 
>

I had found the fault. The directory has had belong to the wrong owner. 
After I'd changed the owner it works.

Mike

download

[Michael Kollender]

Hey,

I tried to download the language pack "Linux x86 Tar.gz" for german 
language with mozilla 0.96. It seem's to work, the file should be saved to 
/home/download, but I cann't find it, even so with other files saved to the 
same directory. Where will be the files saved?

Mike

Re: XML not rendered

[Michael Gratton]

Ranjit Mathew wrote:

> 
> It would be quite nice (REALLY nice) if Moz could
> apply a default XSL to XML files that do not supply 
> one. That shouldn't be too hard.

I dunno, it seems much more correct to not have a default, because unless you *do* 
specify a stylesheet, style for arbitrary XML is inherently undefined.

But to be able to configure one if needed, either through the Preferences, via a 
hidden pref or using something like userContent.css would be cool.

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: Off Topic Please: Re: about:whatever

[Michael Gratton]

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:

> 
> Hardly. Some of the developers of Mozilla may think they are though.
> 

Phil, I think jesus X has that surrounded in  tags that your nightly build of 
Mozilla didn't render properly..

8)


-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: Mozilla starts instead of Netscape!

[Michael Gratton]

Roger Keays wrote:

> I have a small problem with my Debian 3.0 box... The problem is that if 
> Mozilla is running and I type 'netscape', a new Mozilla window opens 
> instead of netscape starting!

Assuming you're using the Debian packages, it's probably an 
/etc/alternatives issue.

If you actually do have NS4 installed, then do a `dpkg -L 
netscape-package-name` to get a list of the files in that package. Look 
for the ones in /usr/bin and run the actual executable name, rather than 
the generic `netscape`. Eg, it may be "/usr/bin/netscape-4.7.8" or similar.

HTH.

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: Wow this page really kills Mozilla fast!

[Michael K Greene]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:46:13, jdavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> http://www.abit-usa.com/
> 
> Immediately the browser pretty much freezes though the page continues to 
> load and finishes loading, but no interaction is possible after.
> 
> This is an important page to me... can anyone take a look?
> 
> Regards.
> 

Loads and works with OS/2 Mozilla, Java Plugin installed.

Finding talkback incident data

[Michael Gratton]

Guys,

Is there anyway to get at the stack trace reported in a Talkback 
incident? I clicked "Send" accidently before looking at the trace and 
I'd really like to see where the thing is crashing.

TIA,
Mike.

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Most users will never start to edit their 'userpref.js' by hand but if
> > you provide a simple solution - just klick on this link and then press
> > OK to allow installation - a lot more users may follow your wishes.

> Apparently, there's going to be a UI for this pref.

What brings you to that idea?

 is the last
thing I heared from the inner circle that makes decissions at
netscape/mozilla. 

If you know any contradicting facts, I was interested to hear them.

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next 
> revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to 
> treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). 

You know that I strongly oppose to any policy that requests unreferenced files
from webservers (like /favicon.ico).

But blocking Mozilla in general is nonsense! We should not punish web users
for some netscape folk's faults.

> I was wondering if there was any way to check (via JS or whatever) whether
> a user had a specific pref enabled? 

There is only one secure way to find this out: 
Install a script that is triggered each time /favicon.ico is requested!

> I'd prefer to be able to simply kick
> out people who have this misfeature enabled.

Kicking people is the wrong way!

If you are skillfull in programming dynamic site code there are several
solutions:

1. Redirecting all requests for /favicon.ico to the browser vendor's website
was described long ago.

>From :

| RedirectMatch permanent .*/favicon\.ico$ URL
| 
| where URL is the URL of either:
|  1) an icon named something other than favicon.ico, on your own site
|  2)  http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico/requests/are/flooding/my/error/log

Since microsoft nowadays is no more the main evil-doer things are no more that
easy if you want to direct your revenge to the right target.

You'll have to write a script instead that reads and interprets the browser
string and redirects the requests accordingliy to 
 or
 or


The disadvantage is that this still costs your visitor's bandwidth, the
advantage is that browser-users will hardly recognize this and will not be
disturbed too much.

If you really want this to have any effect to Netscape's/Mozilla's policy you
need masses of webmasters doing the same, before [EMAIL PROTECTED] will
even notice this bunch of 404-errors at one speciffic ressource.

So if you want other webmasters to follow your example, make it easy for them.
Provide and promote your script, documentation and guidance how to insatll it!

2. Much better than punishing web users or just ranting:

Help Mozilla users to repair their browser!

This needed a small piece of XPI that switches the hidden /favicon.icon
grabbing pref (I hope it still exists ...) to OFF.

Most users will never start to edit their 'userpref.js' by hand but if you
provide a simple solution - just klick on this link and then press OK to allow
installation - a lot more users may follow your wishes.

3. After you have created the XPI auto-configurator you may combine 1. and 2.

Each first request for http://www.your-server/favicon.ico redirects users to
your site where the "stop-aggressive-favicon-grabbing.xpi" is provided and
asks users (politely!) to use it to repair their misconfigured browser.


These are possible measures that may be taken if you really want to do
something usefull to "strike back" against /favicon.ico.  

Isn't it a pitty that we have to spend any time with such stupid ideas instead
od evangelizing for wide use of ?  

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Chris Hoess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Are you sure these sites are actually running a Netscape server?

> 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...




gives the information too.

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[quoting reordered by me]

> Michael Nahrath wrote:
>  
> > There is also a special bug about the fact that this is the wrong place,
> > but Mr. Hyatt preferrs to ignore it (like a lot more bugs that deal with
> > the UI-page-icons) and rather makes thing worse than they were before.

> That is simply not true.  I agree with that bug completely, and the pref
> will be moved to the Navigator panel once that panel has been compacted
> to make room for the pref.  It is only in Appearance temporarily, while
> we wait for the Navigator panel to undergo a redesign that will free up
> space in the panel.

Sorry for my misinterpretation!

Indeed I feel deceived by you and bug 109843. 

The way you simply ignored all our arguments against it made me react
angry and maybe let me draw icorrect interpretations.

Nevertheless I hope that my proposal of an "icon" tracking bug does not
get lost upon this:

> > IMO we should have a tracking bug for site driven UI icons. 
> > Who can start one (I guess I don't have the neccessary privileges)?

There are several bugs about Windows icons and GUI icons. Unfortunately
the discussions don't keep to the precise topics very clearly. 

Giving dependency to a tracking bug to all of them may ease oversight
notably. 

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: <http://michael.nahrath.de>PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This feature was turned on by Dave Hyatt on the Mozilla trunk two days
> ago, at 1am Pacific Time.
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109843

> Gerv

Gerv, what is your oppinion about this? 
Did they change your mind or did they ignore you?

What does "a=gerv (hahaha)" in
 mean?

Greeting, Michi (still shocked)
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I agree with you. All the bug reports/ng postingsthat I've read have 
> said tyhat this is a hidden prefwhich just got turned on. My question 
> is, what do I add to user.js/prefs.js to turn it OFF?

More interesting:

A little piece of XPI is needed to turn this pref back to the correct
value which is OFF.

I would like to put this file on all my sites with the name
'/favicon.ico'.

This may not only cure the prefs of my Mozilla but also the prefs of all
my visitors.

At least an allert 
"We have detected a severe configuration error in the special version
of Mozilla you are using. Please allow this patch to be applied to 
bring your Browser back to web friendly behaviour!" 

would be a better solution than starting to block those misconfigured
Mozilla versions completely from our sites.
 
> Also what/where is the custom image UI pref that hyatt keeps talking about?

Prefs -> Appearance

There is also a special bug about the fact that this is te wrong place,
but Mr. Hyatt preferrs to ignore it (like a lot more bugs that deal with
the UI-page-icons) and rather makes thing worse than they were before.

IMO we should have a tracking bug for site driven UI icons. 
Who can start one (I guess I don't have the neccessary privileges)?

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: mozilla.org favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Michael Nahrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > I like the new icon for mozilla.org, but am I alone in thinking that it
> > would look better on a transparent background instead of the white 
> > background?

> Some kind of half-transparent light corona (remember: this is PNG!)
> might be a solution.

Please have a look at <http://www.subotnik.net/tmp/icons/mozilla.html>

At least it shows the described effect.

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: <http://michael.nahrath.de>PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: mozilla.org favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I like the new icon for mozilla.org, but am I alone in thinking that it
> would look better on a transparent background instead of the white 
> background?

After testing it out for a while I am shure:

Full transparent background is no solution. The icon has to be visable
in full contrast even on grey or red background (... skinns).

Some kind of half-transparent light corona (remember: this is PNG!)
might be a solution.

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: mozilla.org favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I like the new icon for mozilla.org, but am I alone in thinking that it
> would look better on a transparent background instead of the white 
> background?  The white background looks pretty bad in the Tab titles and
> even in the location bar it makes you do a double take since it isn't
> the exact same shade of white(at least in modern).

Full ACK!

Either reopen  or
file a new bug!

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: Possible source of spell checker?

[Michael Pillsbury]

John Lederer wrote:


> Inso was bought by Intranet Solutions, now called Stellent in Eden 
> Prairie, Minn.
> 
> I would be glad to help approach Stellent, though I know no one there.


Hey!  They're right across the street from me!  But I don't know anyone 
there either...

Mike

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Requesting the root favicon.ico automatically I will make configurable
> through a pref.  The  solution is still coming and will be 
> implemented also, and it will support multiple image formats, and it 
> will be used in lieu of favicon.ico if specified by a Web page.
> 
> A special icon cache won't be required with some clever RDF work.  I'll
> be sure to write something up on that when I get into implementing the
> feature for actual bookmarks.

If you only use references by the link element the normal image cache
would be enough. You only need a special caching if you want bookmarks
to keep their icon permanently.

But as mentioned earlier: For me 'bookmark icons' are the least
interesting use of implementing .
 
> The intent here is not to emulate IE.  It is to hijack the feature and
> do it better than IE.  That means supporting  and supporting 
> multiple image formats.  Let's not get hung up over the /favicon.ico 
> part.  Heck, I had to support that just to test the darn feature. :)
> 
> /favicon.ico is designed just to be the fallback when no  is 
> specified, and I'll be sure to make it pref configurable so we can
> flip it on and off as we determine whether or not it's going to be a
> necessity or not.

Thanks for the clearification!

Two questions remain:

* If an icon is referenced in a webpage by the link element it should be
displayed immediately, on page loading.

* If no icon is referenced in the HTML and if blind-fishing for
/favicon.ico is enabled this should _only_ be requested on bookmarking,
never at page loading.

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Homepage: PGP-ID: 0x9A4C704C 
PGP-fingerprint: 3ABA ADC6 6713 4FB5 36D0  B0BD D7D7 517F 9A4C 704C

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Colin Thefleau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Like you pointed out, Konqueror is 
> requesting the file anyway, if it exists or not. I was aware of it only
> when I saw all those errors in my log files, and I agree, this is not the
> right way of doing it. I hope the Konqueror team will correct it.

I hope the Mozilla team will not repeat it.

Giving a better example and evangelizing it to the webmasters might even
be a help for the Konqueror team.

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Jetzt auch mit PGP-Schlüssel: 

Re: NS 6.2 and print preview

[Michael Gratton]

Lucas MacBride wrote:

> 
> Print preview is handy if you want to print part of a web page without 
> printing the whole thing--you can see which page(s) you want to print. 
> Comes in handy if you need to conserve ink.


Ahh, I see. Yeah, that would be useful. Don't forget, you're preserving 
paper was well. 8)

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Colin Thefleau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes I think those favicon are really nice and Mozilla should have them. It
> gives a better overview in the bookmarks. 

Please read the bug! 

It is about much more than icons for bookmarks. 
It is about icons that are connected to the page immediately at load
time and that are displayed without extra user action (bookmarking).

This was a much more interesting feature for web authors than the
unreliable bookmark-icon thing (I think about using this for chapter
numbers or minimal cartoons :-)

> It's in no way an "emulation" of IE, Konqueror uses them also.

... in a way that floods lots webservers with requests about a file that
has never been wanted or referenced by the webmasters.

If there is no uproar about this impolitenes of Konqueror it may be
caused by the rareness our sites are visited by Konqueror users.

 gives the advice to webmasters who feel
disturbed to redirect all those unwellcome requests:

RedirectMatch permanent .*/favicon\.ico$  
 http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico/requests/are/flooding/my/error/log

Do you know how many hits this site gets per day? Do we need browser
detection in the future to redirect the spamming requests to th right
evil-doer?

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Jetzt auch mit PGP-Schlüssel: 

Re: favicon

[Michael Nahrath]

Ian Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Support for IE-style 'favicons' next to bookmarks will shortly be added
> to Mozilla, as a result of bug 
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32087
> 
> There are two ways for selecting the correct favicon
> 1) Using the icon specified in the relevant  tag in the header of
> the HTML page
> 2) If there is no link tag, then automatically trying favicon.ico

I can't find reference at the moment, but wasn't there (at least ideas
for) an extension to http:-headers (... now I found it, it is all
described in the bug!)? 
Might be an interesting third way to apply an icon to a whole site with
only one line of text in the .htaccess file.
 
> I have no problem with the first method, since it only happens if the
> webpage author indends it to happen.
> 
> However, if the webpage author has not thought about using favicon.ico
> then the second method will create a 404 on the server every time it is
> bookmarked (or possibly just visited, I'm not sure when the favicon is
> called for) and slow down web access.

Relying on the link-element gives us the opportunity to do it much
better than IE does.

_If_ an icon is linked inside a page, we can display the icon
immediately whereas IE needs the site to be bookmarked first (and even
then is qute unreliable ...).

I think, doing like Konquerror and requesting /favicon.ico at each call
for a page should be out of discussion. That would produce far too much
bogus traffic and far too many 404-Errors in webserver's logfiles.

Not having the icon before a page is bookmarked is the real weakness of
IE's way to use it. What authors realy would like is an icon attached to
their site in the beginning, without user action.

To achieve this the _will_ implement the neccesary link tag.
 
> Since this is an eyecandy feature, I think we should only be using the
> LINK method. The argument that some sites will have to change too many
> pages should not be inportant, since any large site should have a method
> of changing the design on many pages at once (dreamweaver will do this)
> and on small sites it should be easy to do it manually.

It will be the easiest for datebase driven sites (yahoo was named
earlier ...). Only one extra line in the main template file ...

Of course http://mozilla.org should be an example.
 
> Please post your opinions in reply to this post, DO NOT post your 
> opinions on this subject in the bug report mentioned above.

ACK! And sorry for spaming the bug earlier today!

What disappoints me in general about David's implementation:
All the basics have been worked out inside this bugzilla-bug.

Read the first 10 postings again, there was a complete solution of
implementing  in a way that was
much mightier than IE's favicon: Multiple graphic formats and displaying
the icon at page loading, not at bookmarking. And implementing this
would stil be downwards compatible at least with all existing sites that
allready use .

To me it seems like 'butonator' completely ignores all this discussion's
results and the prior consensus, if he writes what I read "we have to do
exactly like IE, even if we know that it is a bad thing". 

There was so much more chance in implementing 

Greeting, Michi
-- 
Jetzt auch mit PGP-Schlüssel: 

Re: NS 6.2 and print preview

[Michael Gratton]

Kent Scheidegger wrote:

> 
>   I gather that means this program remains nonfunctional,
> for practical purposes.  Anyone know when, if ever,
> Netscape intends to restore this essential function?


Out of curiosity, what is a preview so important for you, personally? I 
don't think I've ever used it in any program.

But given that I've been using Moz for a long time now, and for some 
time as my only browser, I'd say it is very functional, for practical 
purposes.

Perhaps you should have qualified your statements a tad: "I gather that 
means this program remains nonfunctional for me, ..." and "... Netscape 
intends to restore this function, which I consider to be essential?"

8)

-- 
Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976.
   

Re: Info request

[Michael Gidge]

YOUR OWN INTERNET SPORTSBOOK & CASINO STARTING @ $17,000!!!

Now assembled and packaged we have the most cost effective turnkey program 
for you. 
A publicly traded company created the casino software, a billion dollar 
corporation¡¦
If you would like to view one of the casino sites, please contact one of 
our casino Agents.  They will provide you with a demonstration casino site 
for you to view. 

For a free info package and CD ROM, please contact one of our casino Agents 
they will be more than happy to overnight you a package, and to answer any 
questions that you may have regarding ownership of your very own online 
sportsbook and casino operation. 
North American toll free# 1 888-633-2259
International#  1 604-688-2310

Respectfully,
Michael Gidge

Re: Rajamani Ganesan DELIVERY FAILURE

[Michael Kaply]

I'm trying to get with his manager to fix this.

Mike Kaply
IBM

Nigel L wrote:

> Enuff, urreddy!  Turn it off, au1.ibm.com!