Re: LANCER!!!
Morten Nilsen wrote: Bamm Gabriana wrote: I believe Lancer deserves some punishment for subscribing this newsgroup to all these About.com mailing lists! Can't anyone do something about this troll? Lancer has shown gross examples of abuse, and I suggest somebody find every ISP he uses/can use and send an abuse report to them. , silly question: how do you know lancer did it?
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Bundy wrote: Opera is a superior web browser to Mozilla. (just compare the back/forward speed vs Mozilla)and unlike MOzilla, it is an end user product. heh, you're funny.
Re: How big is Mozilla now?
Pascal Chevrel wrote: Bundy a dit : and on and on and on and on Could you be more specific and list some major features Opera enjoys and Mozilla not ? superior toolbar customization ;)
Re: planeador
Lancer wrote: http://latinmoz.f2g.net/planeador.html visit with 1024x768 ; in Full Screen Mode. /me thinks lancer should spend some of his time and skill making a mozilla skin :)
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Jiri Znamenacek wrote: Correct. But don't expect me creating publicly available publishing site with such functionality. For about year there are rumours Gecko2 will replace current one once Mozilla 1.0 is shipped so I simply don't border with these things. I've been following Mozilla for a long, long time now and have never heard anything about a gecko2. Searching for it in bugzilla yields no results. I don't think we'll see a gecko2 for a long time. Forms controls piss off far much people than this one case so I can live with it. Maybe it will work some day. (BTW - what is more important for me 1.0 will ship with uncomplete implementation of XBL and we all will have to live with it until 2.0...) XBL form controls are a Mozilla 1.0 requirement. Jirka PS: Maybe I can try to create one HTML file simulating such functionality. Hmm... I'll take a look at it. Claiming that there is a problem and providing no evidence of it makes a hard bug to solve by the developers :) So please do.
Mozilla 1.0: Ready for the corporate desktop?
Just wondering what people on this forum think about Mozilla's usability in a business environment. I have no doubts that the browser, even in it's current form can be deployed. My concern however is the Mail application. Has anyone deployed Mozilla on a large scale? What shortcomings did yoor users encounter most often? Do you think Mozilla 1.0 will have these fixed?
Re: Hyperlink to Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella?
DeMoN LaG wrote: Tony Shepps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 23 Feb 2002: There oughta be - and maybe there is, I don't know about this sort of thing - a hyperlink to search a p2p network. And then, there oughta be a partial p2p client, perhaps one that would only search and leech files and not share them, that could be invoked by such a link. Whaddya think? If there is a Vote of some type deciding if anyone wants to implement this, I vote *NO*. If I want to find something on a P2P network, I open my P2P client and look for it. Web browsers browse the web, not filesharing networks OTOH, with more advanced P2P networks in the future it would be possible to define a filetype containing metadata and a hash which would open a P2P client (aka 'Start' - 'Search' - 'Search files' in Windows 2005) which'll find all files with the valid metadata and'll verify the hash on the found files eventually resulting in single result that can be downloaded from several locations (simultaniously :)) -yatsu
Re: Hyperlink to Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella?
Sören Kuklau wrote: DeMoN LaG wrote: Tony Shepps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 23 Feb 2002: There oughta be - and maybe there is, I don't know about this sort of thing - a hyperlink to search a p2p network. And then, there oughta be a partial p2p client, perhaps one that would only search and leech files and not share them, that could be invoked by such a link. Whaddya think? If there is a Vote of some type deciding if anyone wants to implement this, I vote *NO*. If I want to find something on a P2P network, I open my P2P client and look for it. Web browsers browse the web, not filesharing networks What about ProtoZilla? (See mozdev.org projects) And umm... Mozilla is not only a browser, but a whole suite. And you can do ftp:// as well in the browser, which is _not_ part of the web (WWW). news:// also works. So why not gnutella://, edonkey:// and so on? It wouldn't be wise to put links into a website using such protocols to search for a file because the author of the webpage has very little control over which results are displayed. Having this implemented in the browser however would be quite like the highlight search option. Which'd make more sense. -yatsu
Re: Hyperlink to Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella?
DeMoN LaG wrote: yatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in a58vc9$1cr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:a58vc9$1cr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 23 Feb 2002: OTOH, with more advanced P2P networks in the future it would be possible to define a filetype containing metadata and a hash which would open a P2P client (aka 'Start' - 'Search' - 'Search files' in Windows 2005) which'll find all files with the valid metadata and'll verify the hash on the found files eventually resulting in single result that can be downloaded from several locations (simultaniously :)) I wouldn't mind if someone could decide *on their site* that they wanted you to search a P2P network. Hence the hash, inorder to assure the found content is that the author wanted it to be. Maybe like a link to: p2p://images?Girl_and_dog.jpg or something, and that would open your predefined P2P client and search it's images section for Girl_and_dog.jpg, but having Mozilla itself search P2P networks is asking for trouble. What happens when the RIAA wants to shut down Mozilla for helping copyright infringements? That's no good. Not what i was suggesting in this post, but.. By providing a search mechanism which utilizes an _external_ P2P client? -yatsu
Re: Mozilla Development Roadmap updated - Mozilla is not ready fo 1.0
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: The two worst bugs currently in Mozilla, IMHO, is 55583 (view-source should show original page source) and 46845 (Form elements don't reset upon reloading page). They both cause very annoying dataloss, and they are both futured... :-( After them, standards compliance bugs (layout/DOM) should be the number one priority, IMHO. I believe in order to have a good Mozilla 1.0 release performance work should be of very low priority and more focus should be placed on bugs that hinder proper usage of Mozilla. 'proper usage' optimally being: 1) no dataloss bugs 2) no crashes 3) UI polish 4) no unexpected behavior regarding interraction with mozilla This, with documentation, frozen API's and the promised standards compliance is what the ideal, possible 1.0 release. All performance bugs should be re-evaluated and targetted to Mozilla 1.0+ to give developers more time to fix bugs that can not be permitted in 1.0
Re: 0.9.8 under Linux = unusable
Patrick Gallagher wrote: Kryptolus wrote: Peter Stein wrote: Just installed 0.9.8 via RPM. Unfortunately it has a serious bug that IMHO renders it unusable: None of the pop up windows that require text will actually allow text entry. No cursor appears in the text field and if the pop up has an action button then that button is greyed out. FWIW, this bug was also present in Netscape 6.x, but it was not in Netscape 4.x ( 73 = x = 79 ). There's nothing exotic about my system and I run plenty of X apps without any problems. I'm astounded that a milestone release contains such a fundamental bug. I think it's the RPM. Is this an rpm from mozilla.org or third party? Go to mozilla.org and download a regular mozilla installer for 0.9.8 or better yet compile it =) I tried compiling the source, and I got a fully functional browser out of the deal (actually best running browser I've ever tried) - but it didn't actually install anywhere I could find... so after I closed the instance that opened automatically, I couldn't find the darned thing again... I'm a serious newbie to Linux (small miracle that I even managed to get the source to compile, I think...) - so where did the install go? open konsole/gnometerminal and type: whereis mozilla :)
Re: Navigator - Mozilla
Georg Bremer wrote: Hi When Mozilla 1.0 is released will Netscape take the code into the Navigator etc.? Is Netscape fixing the bugs that appear in Mozilla in their 'own' browser too? Or get Netscape the fixes from Mozilla? Or in which way are Mozilla and Netscape are working together? Im asking because Netscape is beyond Mozillas development state. Maybe Netscape just dont want to annoy ppl with weekly releases, Im not sure. At the moment there are just two stupid reasons why Im using N6.2 and not mozillas newest release: I like the Fog City theme (which didnt work with Mozilla) and the Netscape Logo, just because its an old rival of MS. While i'm sure the majority of the people watching this list is more qualified to answer this, I'll try to save some of their time. Netscape and Mozilla use the same codebase. When Netscape feels it's time for a new release they make a copy of the codebase (a branch off the trunk) and continue developement on that branch until it's considered release ready. They release a new Netscape build and eventually discard the branch (often taking along bugfixes and applying them back to the branch) and continue developement on the trunk. Most of the time Netscape programmers and 'Mozilla' (actually, read that as 'all the other developers from EOne (sp?), Redhat, Beonix (sp again? heh).. etc) programmers work on mozilla side by side, each with their own priorities set by the company they work for, or just bugs they want to see fixed. In the end everyone is working towards the same goal: making Mozilla a good browser/app suite/platform. -yatsu PS. I used Netscape for exactly the same reason; the icon, wow! heh
Re: Navigator - Mozilla
yatsu wrote: Georg Bremer wrote: Hi When Mozilla 1.0 is released will Netscape take the code into the Navigator etc.? Is Netscape fixing the bugs that appear in Mozilla in their 'own' browser too? Or get Netscape the fixes from Mozilla? Or in which way are Mozilla and Netscape are working together? Im asking because Netscape is beyond Mozillas development state. Maybe Netscape just dont want to annoy ppl with weekly releases, Im not sure. Netscape and Mozilla use the same codebase. When Netscape feels it's time for a new release they make a copy of the codebase (a branch off the trunk) and continue developement on that branch until it's considered release ready. They release a new Netscape build and eventually discard the branch (often taking along bugfixes and applying them back to the branch) and continue developement on the trunk. make that: (often taking along bugfixes and applying them back to the trunk)
Mozilla logo
On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:34:52 +0100, Adam Sjøgren wrote: On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 02:32:03 -0500, Chocobo greens wrote: that is very easy for you to say, for some of us, the red star, like mozilla's is still a symbol of death and destruction Sure, sure, you're entitled to that opinion. But what do you propose instead? Using enormous amounts of energy on ranting about what is, is far less constructive, for you, than to use energy on proposing viable alternatives. Come up with a set of graphics, that is *so much better* that everybody can't help to be convinced that it's a good idea to use them instead, then! Show us how much better you can make it, or how much better your ideas are. Sadly, no (sucessful) action has ever been undertaken to get some of the suggested icons in mozilla. Lack of alternatives isn't the problem. - yatsu
Re: WTF! mozilla,
On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 17:40:16 +0100, Jason Bassford wrote: Why on earth did the developers choose such a blatantly political (and many cases offensive) symbol? is their intention to offend or insult? I can't comment on their motives. Whatever their intent was originally, they MUST know by know that the imagery DOES offend and insult many people. But nothing has been changed. This has been brought up in these discussion groups many times. Still, there has been no satisfactory resolution. Jason. I'm not sure what happend to the old icons, but no doubt there's a bug filed on this. All you need is two developers willing to review and one of them to check it in. This could take about, 10 minutes? There's likely to be some other reason why no mozilla developers seem willing to change the icons. Otherwise it'd have been done years ago. BTW, why not use mozilla.org's favicon? Seems like a rather obvious solution *if* the lack of a good icon is the problem. - yatsu
Re: fully customizable toolbars
On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 03:13:25 +0100, Luke wrote: bug 15144 Ability to add/remove toolbar buttons (customize toolbars) 3) Why has there been decided not to show the urlbar seperately from the navbar like N4.x? bug 49543 Separate Toolbar from Address Bar [urlbar] 6) Any plans on copying the fontsizing feature to the navbar? 7) Will fontsizing eventually be stored on a page to page basis? etc. These have bugs too. Please spend your own time searching bugzilla, not others'. Fair enough. I suppose moz. developers must get sick of all these requests that can be avoided without too much trouble. Although bugzilla's still a rather user unfriendly tool. It'd be nice to see a rather simple bug query page with just the summary, description, keyword and url queries. 2) How about a clear urlbar icon on the toolbar? ?! You need to try this out before it's usefullness becomes apparent. It's simply a small button which clears the urlbar, making it easier to type in an url because you don't have to remove the existing one. This is particularly a problem on *nix platforms because selecting text (the url you wish to remove from the urlbar) *copies* it. This way you lose the url you wanted to copy into the urlbar. Galeon and Konqueror have this feature. It's a small thing, but it's becomes highly appreciated when available. - yatsu
Re: fully customizable toolbars
On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:57:45 +0100, R.K.Aa. wrote: [] You need to try this out before it's usefullness becomes apparent. It's simply a small button which clears the urlbar, making it easier to type in an url because you don't have to remove the existing one. This is particularly a problem on *nix platforms because selecting text (the url you wish to remove from the urlbar) *copies* it. This way you lose the url you wanted to copy into the urlbar. Galeon and Konqueror have this feature. It's a small thing, but it's becomes highly appreciated when available. - yatsu see bug 24651 Cheers. - yatsu
Re: no !!!!!!
On Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:53:10 +0100, Juan Perez wrote: Juan Perez wrote: hey, what the hell have you done to my beloved netscape/mozilla little hand pointer, i want it back !! :( Could you be more specific to what has changed and which build you're using? besides, if youre gonna leave this, maybe yous hould also replace the lizard with some blueish rotating m or something, got the point ? hmm, on a second thought, could you please give us the option to us the advanced users to choose our pointer, ive been thinking, ie users will find it friendly to have a similar ui when switching, maybe you should make an IE skin in the installer?? perhaps when installing ask something like: please select the profile that best describes how mozilla will be used or that best describes you 1.- migrating from IE (all the friendly stuff) 2.- public computer (disable auto fill for web forms and passwords, expire history / cache immediatley, etc..) 3.- personal and only personal (completely opposed to public computer) 4.- mozilla classic/default 5.- i dont remember, but there was another one i thought of before 4. Netscape 4.x 5. Mozilla/Netscape 6.x of course all of this goes imho.. please comment about it ! :) I think it's a nice idea. Something for the installer or the profile managers new profile wizard. Not much chance of this being picked up till 1.0 though :) - yatsu
full customizable toolbars
Originally posted to the ui newsgroup but i suppose this isn't all about mozilla's looks. i'm sure there's a bug on this, and never being very sucessful with bugzilla i thought i might ask if anyone knew which bug(s) cover this? Also just a few comments on mozilla's gui. 1) Why doesn't the Go button have an icon? 2) How about a clear urlbar icon on the toolbar? 3) Why has there been decided not to show the urlbar seperately from the navbar like N4.x? 4) It'd be nice to have a simple option to turnoff menubar grippies like IE's lock toolbars. 5) When using the block images feature shouldn't mozilla show the server's url in the context menu? 6) Any plans on copying the fontsizing feature to the navbar? 7) Will fontsizing eventually be stored on a page to page basis? - yatsu
Re: question: why do people continue to use ns4.x instead of ns6/mozilla?
Gervase Markham wrote: Isn't one of the 'goals' of mozilla to as fast (why not faster ??) as navigator 4.7x ?? Given the vastly-higher level of functionality, it's unlikely that Mozilla will ever do much faster than 4.x. Although our page load times seem to have it beat. Gerv ...except on low end machines :)
Permission denied to get property Window.scriptglobals
Can someone tell me what this means, or rather what (generally) triggers this? I recall getting this error when trying to use javascript to fillin a form in a different frame, on a different site. This shouldn't be possible, should it? Asking too many questions again :) - William
Re: Collapsible Tree Menu: IE only?
Jason Johnston wrote:
Well, that was *almost* right ;-) ... replace that while loop with this:
while (tgt tgt.nodeName.toLowerCase()!=ul
tgt.className!=foldheader) {
tgt = tgt.parentNode;
// this loop bubbles up through the content model to find either
// a ul or a li class=foldheader.
}
if (!tgt) return; // quit if neither of the above items.
Worked like a charm :)
While there are a few questions i have about the script, i've already got
more than i asked for, thank you.
Now if only using 'style=margin-left: 10px;' in a ul tag would be
inherited by it's nested tags.. ah well :)
Re: Collapsible Tree Menu: IE only?
DeMoN LaG wrote:
William Leese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
9qt5sp$2fuo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9qt5sp$2fuo$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 20 Oct 2001:
Hello,
A while ago i was looking for a simple, fast collapsible and
expandable tree menu for quick navigation. Having looked at a large
amount of scripts to do this my decision fell on the one below.
But, it turned out that it was IE only (and uses the same ID
for multiple objects).
Is there anyway of adapting the script to work with Mozilla and IE?
var head=display:''
img1 = new Image()
img1.src = fold.gif
img2 = new Image()
img2.src = open.gif
function change()
{
if(!document.all)
document.all is IE only
I don't quite understand this condition. if all page elements there are no
page elements? is there a mozilla equivalent?
and no, i'm obviously not a webdeveloper :)
return
if (event.srcElement.id==foldheader)
{
var srcIndex = event.srcElement.sourceIndex
var nested = document.all[srcIndex + 1]
You want document.getElementByID(foo) here, (foo obviously being the
element's ID)
so..
if(document.getElementByID(foldheader))
{
var srcIndex = event.srcElement.sourceIndex;
var nested = getElementByID[srcIndex + 1];
}
is event.srcElement supported by Moz?
Re: Collapsible Tree Menu: IE only?
Yatsu wrote:
DeMoN LaG wrote:
William Leese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
9qt5sp$2fuo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9qt5sp$2fuo$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 20 Oct 2001:
Hello,
A while ago i was looking for a simple, fast collapsible and
expandable tree menu for quick navigation. Having looked at a large
amount of scripts to do this my decision fell on the one below.
But, it turned out that it was IE only (and uses the same ID
for multiple objects).
Is there anyway of adapting the script to work with Mozilla and IE?
var head=display:''
img1 = new Image()
img1.src = fold.gif
img2 = new Image()
img2.src = open.gif
function change()
{
if(!document.all)
document.all is IE only
I don't quite understand this condition. if all page elements there are no
page elements? is there a mozilla equivalent?
and no, i'm obviously not a webdeveloper :)
return
if (event.srcElement.id==foldheader)
{
var srcIndex = event.srcElement.sourceIndex
var nested = document.all[srcIndex + 1]
You want document.getElementByID(foo) here, (foo obviously being the
element's ID)
so..
if(document.getElementByID(foldheader))
I'm afraid the javascript console complains at this line.
document.getElementByID is not a function.
{
var srcIndex = event.srcElement.sourceIndex;
var nested = getElementByID[srcIndex + 1];
}
is event.srcElement supported by Moz?
Re: Collapsible Tree Menu: IE only?
Christian Mattar wrote:
Hi!
Yatsu wrote:
so..
if(document.getElementByID(foldheader))
I'm afraid the javascript console complains at this line.
document.getElementByID is not a function.
It's 'getElementById', not 'getElementByID'.
Christian
ah, cheers :)
Hum, still didn't work though. Having spend a little more time looking into
the script i've (finally) come to the understanding that all it does is
- check is the calling object has a certain ID
- store a reference to the next object
- change the css attribute display to either none or . doing so
shows or hides the items nested in the object.
the only thing faulty about this is that it uses the ID property (or is it
attribute? :) which is meant to be unique. Is it possible to identify
objects by class?
so..
if(getElementByClass? == folder)
{
if(object.style.display == none)
{
object.style.display == ;
}
else
{
object.style.display == none;
}
return
}
hey, atleast i'm trying ;)
Re: Collapsible Tree Menu: IE only?
Gervase Markham wrote:
Is there anyway of adapting the script to work with Mozilla and IE?
Yes, but as far as I can see, the way it's written is so IE-specific
that it basically means rewriting it.
The first thing you need to know is that only IE supports accessing
elements using the document.all.foo syntax. The W3C way is to use
document.GetElementById('foo'), which IE also supports. However, this
requires the element to actually have an ID - this script is accessing
them by their number in the document.all array. I don't know if Mozilla
maintains a similar array.
the array is pretty much essential i think. because you have to find the
next object on the page (or the next ul tag). does GetElementByTag hold
all tags in an array?
