Jeremy M. Dolan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED], Brendan Eich wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.htmlComments welcome.
Brendan,I'd like to see a release candidate period for 1.0 put into place. Inthe past serious b
Brendan Eich wrote:
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
Comments welcome. Questions too, so I might have something to put
... in the roadmap FAQ, I wrote -- but the rest of my message was
chopped due to an obscure Mozilla mail bug.
/be
Mozilla builds have become dependent on extensions including cookie,
wallet, and xmlextras (for XSLT) at least. We need to eliminate these
unconditional compile-time dependencies, replacing them with XPCOM-based
runtime dependencies where the calling or dependent code fails-soft if
the
What does the @mozilla.org people think about this? I don't recall
ever seeing a single comment about this from any of them.
My three posts are at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news://news.mozilla.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news://news.mozilla.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Aaron, Peter Lairo, the rest of you who's arguing to get this feature
removed: I wish you the best of luck. I, however, feel like I'm
wasting my time here, so I'll stop now and do something else. Maybe I
should start whining about Backspace being mapped to Back on Win32
instead - unlike
Gervase Markham wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Assume [...] that each Mozilla user's browser checks for the icon
once a week - say once every 100 page loads.
Why are you assuming any such thing? Evidence?
A Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (SWAG) based on what I know about how the
favicon
Assume [...] that each Mozilla user's browser checks for the icon once
a week - say once every 100 page loads.
Why are you assuming any such thing? Evidence?
/be
David Hyatt wrote:
Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
I'd add that this can be extremely frustrating for people outside
netscape. There are definitely two kinds of developers in the Mozilla
project: those at netscape who can get r/sr/a in the space of 10
minutes,
and those not a netscape whose
Gervase Markham wrote:
interface nsIFoo : nsISupports {
long getLength();
void setLength(in long length);
long getColor();
};
Would these not need to be GetLength and SetLength to be the same as the
below? Or will either do?
Either will do for the
Another one (I'll try not to dribble these in one per message):
Don't comment out code that should be removed temporarily, or that seems to
be harmful (but where you don't yet understand why disabling the code cures
a bug). Use #if 0 and comment why you're temporarily disabling the code.
Simon Fraser wrote:
Another issue: ensure that global static data is const where possible;
this allows the linker to place it in a read-only section of the DLL,
that has file-mapping advantages (see bug
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74803).
Example:
Bad: static const
Later, Roy Fielding,
then a graduate student at the University of California,
Irvine, noted that the UC lawyers had concerns about the
patent grant clause in the Mozilla Public License version
1.0.
Did those same lawyers ever look hard at the patent issues in the BSD
license? I wonder why
Jon Smirl wrote:
94r0kp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
I think the idea was more along the lines of having
the Mozilla organization host xpcom.org. It's a marketing/presentation change,
not a change of ownership. Right now XPCOM is buried inside the Mozilla browser
project and very few people are aware
Ari Heitner wrote:
20010126125801.E447@andrew">On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:07:05PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
Heck, why not have separate domain names for all mozilla.org'scomponentised technologies? Then, they would all be magically finished andusable! ;-)goes off to register
The idea is that an imperfect (but okay) component system that get used
widely and pervasively is infinitely better than even a perfect one that
nobody uses.
Agreed. How many times must I cite Richard P. Gabriel's "Worse is Better"?
XPLC thrives toward simplicity and efficiency, so
Rick Parrish wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Gervase Markham wrote:
Heck, why have a mozilla.org site? Why not call ithttp://www.aol.com/netscape/projects/mozilla ?Because Mozilla isn't a division of AOL, or a part of Netscape, or one ofNetscape's projects. It's an independent entity.
While
16 matches
Mail list logo
