Hi!
Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
> And it came to pass that Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Christopher Jahn wrote:
> >>
> >> And it came to pass that Richard Blair wrote:
> >>
> >> >So far I have seen very little reasoned arguments in
> >> >favour of actually downloading 24Mb, to try
Hi all,
Is there anyway to know by any "nsI.*" interface
whether an element has a script handler ?
Thanks,
Moshe.
For the record, Netscape 6 having an effect on icons of Nav 4.x is due
to the way the icon association works on Mac. Netscape 6 and Nav 4.x
both use the same creator code. Whether Netscape 6 or Nav 4.x is
considered more dominant depends on how the data in Desktop File happens
to be arranged.
At 12:36 25/02/2001 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>for galeon & mozilla people: a bug report
Could you file this as a bug report on http://bugzilla.mozilla.org
This behaviour might also explain some of the problems with the throbber
not stopping.
Simon
===
L.EGAL C.A.B.L.E TV DE-S.C.R.A.M.B.L.E.R
Want to watch Sporting Events?--Movies?--Pay-Per-View??
*This is the Famous R-O Shack TV D.e.s.c.r.a.m.b.l.e.r
You can assemble it from R,a,d,i,o S,h,a,c,k parts for about $12 to $15.
We Send You:
1, E-Z To follow Assembly Instructions.
2. E-Z To read
Hello!
JR> this is bug 52798, which will probably be fixed when the new imglib code
JR> goes in.
I hear it so often... When will it happen? Any target date or so?
--
Best regards, Eugene Savitsky.
Menelon OU E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.menelon.ee
At 20:18 25/02/2001 +1300, Matthew Thomas wrote:
>JLP wrote:
> >
> > Niko Pavlicek wrote:
> >...
> > > I'd like the proposal with a popup or another error message which
> > > asks the user what mozilla should do.
> >
> > I agree with showing the error message to the user. It should also
> > have a
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:31:07AM +, Simon P. Lucy wrote:
> At 12:36 25/02/2001 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >for galeon & mozilla people: a bug report
>
> Could you file this as a bug report on http://bugzilla.mozilla.org
> This behaviour might also explain some of the problems with the th
richard brack wrote:
> With netscape I always set the helper applications to use an
> external graphic viewer for gif, jpg, and png files. So when
> clicking a link to a jpg, or when using the right-click->view image
> option, the graphic is passed to the external viewer instead of
> using a new
Have made new Win-Icons for the file-type association from the existing
GIFs made by Warren Bell. If interested plz post it here.
Anyway, thx to Mike Koenecke for his first try to make .icos for me and
Warren
Bell for his excellent GIF-works.
Hetzer schrieb:
> Warren Bell schrieb:
>
> > I made up some file type icons. They're not perfect yet, and I don't
> > know how to make them into actual icons, but how do they look? If there
> > isn't any file type icons being worked on yet where can I submit these?
> > Like I said they're not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> After installing java plugin via connecting to a site with
> java and mozilla confirms installation, I get asked again
> by mozilla to install Java when connecting to the same site
> that has java or any other site with Java. Of course I
> restarted mozilla after instal
I got things mess up now after uninstall/reinstall many times. The
situation is I install N6 with Java plugin sometime ago. Then I install
Mozilla 0.8 and for some reasons I can't run Java applet. I figured out
now how to make things work but the problem is that I can't use the same
profile fo
Matthew Thomas wrote:
>
> Mark Anderson wrote:
> >...
> > I still wish HTML validation was required to publish a page. This
> > kind of thing would never have happened if browsers hadn't started
> > letting shoddy HTML through the cracks.
> >...
>
> And if pages had always been required to be p
Matthew Thomas wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, baby!
>
> ++
> ||
> ++
> | . The link you have selected points
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> For the record, Netscape 6 having an effect on icons of Nav 4.x is due
> to the way the icon association works on Mac. Netscape 6 and Nav 4.x
> both use the same creator code. Whether Netscape 6 or Nav 4.x is
> considered more dominant depends on how the data in Desktop F
Duane Clark wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
> Duane Clark wrote:
>
>> Mark Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Duane Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
Mark Anderson wrote:
> End users should be given the option of what to do in this scenario.
> Not to interpret the link as a relat
Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
> And it came to pass that Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Christopher Jahn wrote:
> >>
> >> And it came to pass that Richard Blair wrote:
> >>
> >> >So far I have seen very little reasoned arguments in
> >> >favour of actually downloading 24Mb, to try out
Christian Mattar wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
> >
> > And it came to pass that Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Christopher Jahn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> And it came to pass that Richard Blair wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >So far I have seen very little reasoned arguments
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> For the record, Netscape 6 having an effect on icons of Nav 4.x is due
> to the way the icon association works on Mac. Netscape 6 and Nav 4.x
> both use the same creator code. Whether Netscape 6 or Nav 4.x is
> considered more dominant depends on how the data in Desktop
Mark Anderson wrote:
>..
>
> But this, of course, is a moot point and ancient history (hindsight is,
> after all, 20/20). And with regards to the topic at hand, since it's
> been shown that older browsers don't even show a differentiation between
> the wrong URLs and the syntactically correct
Hi Folks,
I've been using nightly builds on Linux for a while and have recently
upgraded to kernel 2.4.1. Ever since this upgrade the graphical
performance of mozilla has noticably lessened.
The graphical performance of any other apps I have doesn't seem to be
affected.
Has anyone else notic
Hmm, I'm not sure.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/libimage/libpr0n.html
"Eugene Savitsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello!
>
> JR> this is bug 52798, which will probably be fixed when the new imglib
code
> JR> goes in.
>
> I hear it so of
Hmm, I'm not sure. These urls have some info but don't seem to list dates:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/libimage/libpr0n.html
http://www.pavlov.net/mozilla/libimg2.html
Scott Thomson schrieb:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I've been using nightly builds on Linux for a while and have recently
> upgraded to kernel 2.4.1. Ever since this upgrade the graphical
> performance of mozilla has noticably lessened.
>
> The graphical performance of any other apps I have doesn't seem to b
> | . The link you have selected points to the address |
> | /!\ "http:/fmf/wwwpages/fmf_models.html", which |
> | """ contravenes IETF RFC 2396 (AFAICT), C.E.T., CBE, |
This would be a symptom of Matthew having access to email, newsgroups and
Bugzilla but n
> I think that if the page is broken then it's the fault of the webmaster
> who created the page and Mozilla should tell the user that there is an
> error in page and tell more about the error and to contact webmaster of
> the badly coded page.
This becomes complicated (for the case in question)
> Putting up a dialog with the offending URL giving them the chance to make
> their own decision seems fine to me.
95% of users will say to said dialog "I don't have an clue", as
Matthew so eloquently pointed out. Users to not know what absolute and
relative URLs are.
> Software can make
"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
>
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
> >
> > And it came to pass that Richard Blair wrote:
> >
> > >So far I have seen very little reasoned arguments in favour
> > >of actually downloading 24Mb, to try out n6.
> > >
> >
> > BTW - Netscape 6 is NOT an upgrade - it's comple
> Could somebody tell me why M18 don't understand layers? It's a bug?
>
> With best wishes,
> Edson Alves Pereira
> > Could somebody tell me why M18 don't understand layers? It's a bug?
No, it's because layers are a Netscape-proprietary standard, and the
Mozilla codebase does not support proprietary standards from any vendor.*
Gerv
* Well, you could make an argument that innerHTML is one.
Hi everybody !
I've downloaded and installed Mozilla 0.8 and the Java Plugin 1.3 for
Netscape 6 Linux, but it doesn't work : when a site uses Java, the
window for downloading the appropriate plugin appears...
Could you help me ?
Thx in advance !
VaRioR
VaRioR wrote:
> Hi everybody !
>
> I've downloaded and installed Mozilla 0.8 and the Java Plugin 1.3
> for Netscape 6 Linux, but it doesn't work : when a site uses Java,
> the window for downloading the appropriate plugin appears...
See this for details:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cg
PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR PURCHASING
YOUR LASER PRINTER SUPPLIES
VORTEX SUPPLIES
-SPECIALS OF THE DAY ON LASER TONER SUPPLIES AT DISCOUNT PRICES--
LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES
COPIER AND FAX CARTRIDGES
WE ARE -->THE<-- PLACE TO BUY YOUR TONER CARTRIDGES BECAU
Edson Alves Pereira wrote:
>
> > Could somebody tell me why M18 don't understand layers? It's a bug?
Yes. the LAYER tag was a bad idea from the start, as Netscape even noted by
it's deprecation of the tag before 4.0 final was even out. DIVs ans such are
fully supported though.
--
jesus X [
I've just started playing with the latest Redhat beta (7.0.90), and Moz
0.8 won't start.
It hangs after the "registering plugins" messages. Anybody else seen
this?
System info...
667 MHz i686
2.4.0-0.99 kernel
XFree86 4.0.2, mga driver (G400 Max)
KDE 2.1 beta
I think that's all of the pertinen
Matt wrote:
> I've just started playing with the latest Redhat beta (7.0.90), and Moz
> 0.8 won't start.
> It hangs after the "registering plugins" messages. Anybody else seen
> this?
Boy...do I feel stupid. The directory that Mozilla was installed in was
write-protected. Duh...
Moz is work
Bob wrote:
>
> I've tried installing Mozilla .8 several times in Win98 and
> it appears to install fine but when I try to run it, all that
> comes up is the splash screen and there it hangs. I've down-
> loaded the installer twice and the zip file once and have
> had the same results each time.
38 matches
Mail list logo
