Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Jiri Znamenacek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 18 Mar 2002: > LaG it's quicker on slower computer, but I think he builds Mozilla > itself and there can be some differences. That I do. -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
> > BTW, I don't have any problems with form control. Works fine > for me. If you're having a problem, post the URL of the form in > question. > OK in news://news.mozilla.org:[EMAIL PROTECTED] == from the above message = trim... I hacked away at the javascript today, converting it to send name/value pairs like the old mailto did. I ran into a problem, I can't get the body of the e-mail to have new lines. I put a test page with some examples and some info on the applicable standards here: http://www.jsoft.com/ts/tools/mailto/testMailto1.html If anyone can help, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Gary = Thanks, Gary
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Gervase Markham wrote: >> 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. > That's absolutely definitely not true. There is no "Gecko 2". Somebody mentioning year ago Gecko2 really doesn't mean there will be one ever ^_^ On the other hand multithreaded Gecko would be good. >> PS: Maybe I can try to create one HTML file simulating such >> functionality. Hmm... I'll take a look at it. > Also known as a "testcase" :-) Done. It's not the same as original but it proves that on my comp (very quick one) Mozilla is 20 times slower. Interesting that for DeMoN LaG it's quicker on slower computer, but I think he builds Mozilla itself and there can be some differences. Jirka
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
> 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. That's absolutely definitely not true. There is no "Gecko 2". > PS: Maybe I can try to create one HTML file simulating such > functionality. Hmm... I'll take a look at it. Also known as a "testcase" :-) Gerv
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Jiri Znamenacek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 17 Mar 2002: >OK, I created something like testcase. Overall performance is >not so > much bad, but that page contains only 33 (sic ^_^) form groups > (and without FORM). > Win2k, 512MB RAM, Duron 1.3ish ghz: IE6.0: ~.5 seconds Mozilla .9.9+ (recenty CVS pull): 1.8 seconds -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Jiri Znamenacek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 17 Mar 2002: >OK, I created something like testcase. Overall performance is >not so > much bad, but that page contains only 33 (sic ^_^) form groups > (and without FORM). > Win2k, 512MB RAM, Duron 1.3ish ghz: IE6.0: ~.5 seconds Mozilla .9.9+ (recenty CVS pull): 1.8 seconds -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Well that's nice. I asked if these bugs were going to be in AOL 8 though. How about this for a showstopper form bug though? Now reload the page. The checkbox stays, but the hidden value is cleared. This bug alone makes javascript unuseable on forms, AND Mozilla thinks this is the right way to do it. It's been filed for a long time and they see nothig wrong. jon Bamm Gabriana wrote: >>bugs, bugs, bugs...search for form on bugzilla. Try to develop a form >>that uses javascript extensively. Lot's of inconsistencies...then hit >>reload. bah. Honestly I do spend 90% of my work week developing >>forms of some kind. It's true. > > > Welcome to the club. Since most of us here are developers, then it > follows that most of what we do on the web also relates to forms. > > Please understand that making things work for Mozilla is not a > workaround. Mozilla implements Javascript, Html and Css in a way > that is most consistent with W3C standards. > > A paradigm shift: what you are doing to make things work in IE is > the workaround, since it is IE that is not standards compliant. > > Finally: Mozilla is not intended to be an end-user product. The > download page says it all: Binaries are made available for testing > purposes only. > > If you do find what you believe to be a legit bug, the proper thing > to do is to file a bug report, or fix it yourself by submitting a patch. > > >
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
>> 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. OK, I created something like testcase. Overall performance is not so much bad, but that page contains only 33 (sic ^_^) form groups (and without FORM). - WinXP, 512MB RAM, AthlonXP 1600+ : IE6.0 almost instant, CPU ~20% Mozilla 0.9.9+ >4s, CPU at 100% all the time - W2k, 384MB RAM, Athlon 600Mhz : IE5.5 <0.5s, CPU ~70% Mozilla 0.9.9+ >6s, CPU 100% all the time - Anybody has some older machine? I would be interested in numbers. If something from it should be submitted, things for Mozilla would become even worse (or at least became last time I tried; no, I'm not going to try it again, especially after last data-loss ^_-). Jirka froms-control_test.zip Description: Zip compressed data
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
yatsu wrote: > 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. It is more than year old comment, don't even know where from, but surely said by some Netscape developer during some talks over architectural design of Gecko. > XBL form controls are a Mozilla 1.0 requirement. That doesn't mean XBL will be implemented completely. (For example
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.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Christopher Jahn wrote: > I'm not denying there are problems; there ARE problems. But if > you don't post the links, no one can look to see the specific > cause; sometimes it will be Mozilla, and sometimes it will be > problems with the server or the code on the page. Without an > URL to go check out it is impossible to see which is the case in > any specific complaint. 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. 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...) Jirka PS: Maybe I can try to create one HTML file simulating such functionality. Hmm... I'll take a look at it.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
And it came to pass that Neil M. wrote:
> Travis Crump wrote:
>> Umm, you realize that this much text is roughly equivalent
>> to a hundred-page book? Even so, unless you give an
>> example to back up your claims then this discussion is
>> pointless...
>
> I hear that moderating a slashdot.org article is quite
> slow.
>
>
I hear the moon is made of cheese. But it means nothing without
documentation, and neither does your report without specific
examples.
I'm not denying there are problems; there ARE problems. But if
you don't post the links, no one can look to see the specific
cause; sometimes it will be Mozilla, and sometimes it will be
problems with the server or the code on the page. Without an
URL to go check out it is impossible to see which is the case in
any specific complaint.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
We'll run no program before its time
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Travis Crump wrote: > Umm, you realize that this much text is roughly equivalent to a > hundred-page book? Even so, unless you give an example to back up your > claims then this discussion is pointless... I hear that moderating a slashdot.org article is quite slow.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Umm, you realize that this much text is roughly equivalent to a hundred-page book? Even so, unless you give an example to back up your claims then this discussion is pointless... Jiri Znamenacek wrote: > No, Bugzilla is too simple. Something like page with several tens of > textareas, in every 5-10kB of text. (Yes, you can always try to make > admin to split such a page, but IE has no problem with them so why > Mozilla should?) > > Jirka >
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Travis Crump wrote: > Umm, you mean something like bugzilla? I highly doubt anything that > affects the operation of bugzilla would go unnoticed for long... No, Bugzilla is too simple. Something like page with several tens of textareas, in every 5-10kB of text. (Yes, you can always try to make admin to split such a page, but IE has no problem with them so why Mozilla should?) Jirka
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Umm, you mean something like bugzilla? I highly doubt anything that affects the operation of bugzilla would go unnoticed for long... Jiri Znamenacek wrote: > As for slowness with lot of forms in page I can't provide any URL > since most visible pages use max. 3 form controls. But maybe you can > find some database powered site which uses pages with lots of form > controls for backend, textareas and input fields prefilled with data.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Christopher Jahn wrote: > And it came to pass that Jiri Znamenacek wrote: >> Everybody knows form control in Mozilla sucks > BTW, I don't have any problems with form control. Works fine > for me. If you're having a problem, post the URL of the form in > question. Create the most simple HTML page with only TEXTAREA inside, nothing else. And now try to type something in it. Type more then one two lines of text. And now try to move on this text by arrow keys and so on. Are you able to go directly to the previous (or next) line by up (down) arrow key? Don't you erase the end of you writings while trying to delete the first word because with Backspace cursor magicaly jumps from the first position to the last? Etc. etc. And every single build I try behaves diferently from the previous. Maybe that's good since someone probably working on it ^_^ As for slowness with lot of forms in page I can't provide any URL since most visible pages use max. 3 form controls. But maybe you can find some database powered site which uses pages with lots of form controls for backend, textareas and input fields prefilled with data. I have to work with some and I must say that Mozilla is unuseable on them - simply displaying such pages takes her (er, Mozilla is a woman in Czech ^_^) 5x-10x more time than IE (something like infamous DHTML performance). It's two weeks Mozilla cut submitted data in textarea for me. Don't get me wrong, I follow Mozilla from her beginning and I like her very much, but simply there is still the long way before her to be really useable. Jirka
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
> BTW, I don't have any problems with form control. Works fine > for me. If you're having a problem, post the URL of the form in > question. There are lots of problems with them. The cursor going up when you press down, that sorta thing (That one should be fixed now). When I go to www.garagegames.com and try to write a forum post (requires a login) sometimes it can take 2 seconds per character to show up. The more you type, the slower it gets. More than once I've resorted to typing my message in notepad and pasting it into mozilla because it was too slow to type. Oddly enough pasting works instantly. (Yes I've filed a bug on it)
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
> bugs, bugs, bugs...search for form on bugzilla. Try to develop a form > that uses javascript extensively. Lot's of inconsistencies...then hit > reload. bah. Honestly I do spend 90% of my work week developing > forms of some kind. It's true. Welcome to the club. Since most of us here are developers, then it follows that most of what we do on the web also relates to forms. Please understand that making things work for Mozilla is not a workaround. Mozilla implements Javascript, Html and Css in a way that is most consistent with W3C standards. A paradigm shift: what you are doing to make things work in IE is the workaround, since it is IE that is not standards compliant. Finally: Mozilla is not intended to be an end-user product. The download page says it all: Binaries are made available for testing purposes only. If you do find what you believe to be a legit bug, the proper thing to do is to file a bug report, or fix it yourself by submitting a patch.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Bamm Gabriana wrote: >>You have > to code according to standards, not according to IE's form bugs. > Or more accurately, you have to choose whether to code according to standards or according to IE's non-standard rendering method.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
bugs, bugs, bugs...search for form on bugzilla. Try to develop a form that uses javascript extensively. Lot's of inconsistencies...then hit reload. bah. Honestly I do spend 90% of my work week developing forms of some kind. It's true. Christian Biesinger wrote: > jon wrote: > >> Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form handling. > > > Can't confirm that, could you name examples of this?
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
> Do that mean all of the rendering bugs that look like they will make it > into 1.0 are going to be present in AOL+Gecko? > > Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form handling. Considering I > spend 90% of my time developing forms of some kind, if that's true I may > as well give up and use Flash forms, I know what it's going to take to > work around all of the Mozilla forms bugs and I can't justify the time... If you mean that there is no space between forms thus requiring an extra , then that is because this is the W3C prescription. IE inserts a space after the closing form tag. Mozilla handles forms perfectly according to W3C standards. On the other hand, IE has extremely bad html form handling. You have to code according to standards, not according to IE's form bugs.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
And it came to pass that Jiri Znamenacek wrote:
> dman84 wrote:
> > Christian Biesinger wrote:
> >> jon wrote:
> >>> Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form
> >>> handling.
> >> Can't confirm that, could you name examples of this?
> > yeah, please before 1.0 hits..
>
>Everybody knows form control in Mozilla sucks
Well, gosh, that's helpful, now that you have clearly identified
the problem we'll just add a user pref:
user pref("form control sucks: false")
Why didn't this get done months ago?
;-)
BTW, I don't have any problems with form control. Works fine
for me. If you're having a problem, post the URL of the form in
question.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Nemo me impune lacessit.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
dman84 wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: >> jon wrote: >>> Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form handling. >> Can't confirm that, could you name examples of this? > yeah, please before 1.0 hits.. Everybody knows form control in Mozilla sucks (TEXTAREA is just unbelieavable, a lot of forms on the page slow Mozilla till the death; I also lost data several times so believe it or not although Mozilla is my default browser comming to the forms I start IE) and that Mozilla can't eat a lot of badly written HTML all over the web. The first thing is the shame, the second big trouble 'cause everybody will be saying: "But IE renders it correctly!" Jirka
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden > increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed > recently. No, silly, they've been fixed because of your incessant moaning! I should have thought that was obvious! -- Erik Corry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interviewer: "Real programmers use cat as their editor." Bill Joy: "That's right! There you go! It is too much trouble to say ed, because cat's smaller and only needs two pages of memory."
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Christian Biesinger wrote: > jon wrote: > >> Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form handling. > > > Can't confirm that, could you name examples of this? yeah, please before 1.0 hits.. -dman84
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
jon wrote: > Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form handling. Can't confirm that, could you name examples of this? -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Do that mean all of the rendering bugs that look like they will make it into 1.0 are going to be present in AOL+Gecko? Mozilla still also has extremely bad html form handling. Considering I spend 90% of my time developing forms of some kind, if that's true I may as well give up and use Flash forms, I know what it's going to take to work around all of the Mozilla forms bugs and I can't justify the time... jon Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden >> increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed >> recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to >> Mozila! > > > AOL is testing *Gecko* -- not Mozilla. Gecko is Mozilla's rendering > engine. Gecko is the code that takes an HTML file and turns it into cool > looking stuff which you see on your screen. Mozilla's UI, mail client, > XUL, "showstoppers", etc has *nothing* whatsoever to do with Gecko. > > /Jonas >
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
DeMoN LaG wrote: > Heh, what will Mozilla's market share look like with the additition of > 30 million AOL members? Significantly higher than 1.0%, I think Last year AOL was the top company in terms of e-commerce, either directly or indirectly (routing its users to othe e-commerce site (I read it somewhere, I remember reading about the amount of money involved was at over billions of dollar level). What e-commerce site, bank, information, entertaining, news site can afford not making their sites avalable to AOL users. In a tight economy it would be suicide not to support gecko, in a booming economy it would mean business growth and opportunities.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
RV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 15 Mar 2002: > Someone will have to start eating his own words soon ;-) Long > live the Politburo at Maozilla (no pun intended) > Heh, what will Mozilla's market share look like with the additition of 30 million AOL members? Significantly higher than 1.0%, I think -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
JTK wrote: > Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > >> JTK wrote: >> >>> Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden >>> increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed >>> recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to >>> Mozila! Someone will have to start eating his own words soon ;-) Long live the Politburo at Maozilla (no pun intended)
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Sören Kuklau wrote: > Are you sure the Gecko version will be actually *released* as final > product? As far as I know, it's just a beta test build built on AOL 7.0 > and an embedded Gecko - but the actual Gecko-powered AOL will be 8.0. Who cares how they call it? Will it make a diference if they call it AOL7.1, AOL8, AOL 2003, AOL Timbuktu? The important thing is that they are incorporating it into mainstream AOL
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > JTK wrote: > >> Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden >> increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed >> recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to >> Mozila! > > > AOL is testing *Gecko* -- not Mozilla. Gecko is Mozilla's rendering > engine. Gecko is the code that takes an HTML file and turns it into cool > looking stuff which you see on your screen. Mozilla's UI, mail client, > XUL, "showstoppers", etc has *nothing* whatsoever to do with Gecko. > Not officially.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote: > Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden > increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed > recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to Mozila! > The fire marshal just called for you; he says you'll have to drag your strawman outside. -- Chris Hoess
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
JTK wrote: > Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden > increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed > recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to Mozila! AOL is testing *Gecko* -- not Mozilla. Gecko is Mozilla's rendering engine. Gecko is the code that takes an HTML file and turns it into cool looking stuff which you see on your screen. Mozilla's UI, mail client, XUL, "showstoppers", etc has *nothing* whatsoever to do with Gecko. /Jonas
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
On 3/15/2002 6:42 PM, Stuart Ballard apparently wrote exactly the following:
> RV wrote:
>
>>*"Hello Beta Testers!
>>The Beta Team is happy to announce the start of a new Beta test -- AOL
>>7.0 with Netscape Gecko.
>
>
> Any other software company would call it 7.1... that's going to be hell
> for site admins when they ask AOLers what version they're using... is an
> AOL user really going to make the distinction between "7.0 with Netscape
> Gecko" versus "7.0"?
>
> When was the last AOL version that didn't end in .0, I wonder? Perhaps
> AOL should trademark all version numbers ending in "point oh"... ;)
Are you sure the Gecko version will be actually *released* as final
product? As far as I know, it's just a beta test build built on AOL 7.0
and an embedded Gecko - but the actual Gecko-powered AOL will be 8.0.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
RV wrote: > > *"Hello Beta Testers! > The Beta Team is happy to announce the start of a new Beta test -- AOL > 7.0 with Netscape Gecko. Any other software company would call it 7.1... that's going to be hell for site admins when they ask AOLers what version they're using... is an AOL user really going to make the distinction between "7.0 with Netscape Gecko" versus "7.0"? When was the last AOL version that didn't end in .0, I wonder? Perhaps AOL should trademark all version numbers ending in "point oh"... ;) Stuart. -- Stuart Ballard, Programmer NetReach - Internet Solutions (215) 283-2300, ext. 126 http://www.netreach.com/
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Gervase Markham wrote: >> Not and AOL member and want to test it. Join AOL (45 days free). Go to >> Keyword beta and join the beta test. I am using it right now and it >> works real well. No one will notice the difference .. that i a good >> thing. AOLers don't care if the browser is IE based or not but the >> repercusions will be great for WEB standards > > > Yes, if you are an AOL member, get on the trial, then visit all the > sites mentioned in Evangelism bugs and tell them "I'm using the new AOL > beta (based on Mozilla's Gecko) and it doesn't work with your site!" > > That'll scare 'em... :-) > > Gerv > Yes!!!
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
> Not and AOL member and want to test it. Join AOL (45 days free). Go to > Keyword beta and join the beta test. I am using it right now and it > works real well. No one will notice the difference .. that i a good > thing. AOLers don't care if the browser is IE based or not but the > repercusions will be great for WEB standards Yes, if you are an AOL member, get on the trial, then visit all the sites mentioned in Evangelism bugs and tell them "I'm using the new AOL beta (based on Mozilla's Gecko) and it doesn't work with your site!" That'll scare 'em... :-) Gerv
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
dman84 wrote: > RV wrote: > >> AOL is reuesting AOl beta testers for AOL+Gecko. They will incorporate >> gecko into AOL 7.0, not waiting for AOL 8.0 as many thought before. >> The announcement reads as follows: >> > > no, they will be incorporating AOL 7.0 with Gecko to get AOL 8.0, not > into Aol 7.0, thats over and done with.. They are not going to release > a new AOL 7.0.. your logic is out of sync. > > -.dman84 > Are you an AOL beta tester? I am. We reecently tested AOL 7.0 New Technology (as they called it). Gecko (0.9.4.2) is going into AOL 7.x and AOl have always beta tested their software with their actual version number that will be used.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
RV wrote: > AOL is reuesting AOl beta testers for AOL+Gecko. They will incorporate > gecko into AOL 7.0, not waiting for AOL 8.0 as many thought before. The > announcement reads as follows: > no, they will be incorporating AOL 7.0 with Gecko to get AOL 8.0, not into Aol 7.0, thats over and done with.. They are not going to release a new AOL 7.0.. your logic is out of sync. -dman84
