Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:07:08 GMT, Jim Power <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I would contend that this is more than perception. I would rather :have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even :if it is overall slower. I can get an idea of what I'm looking at, :visually scan for

Talkback.exe taking 100% of CPU?

When talkback.exe is trying to send a talkback, it takes 100% of the CPU all the time it's trying to communicate with the server. Should it be doing this? Also, I'm having trouble contacting the talkback servers again. Where is the data stored? Is there some way to email it in? -- http://thing

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 13:18:17 +0100, Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Looking at the bug statistics at :http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=show_chart&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&links=1&banner=1 :Bugs are takin

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:20:58 -0800, tradervik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and :noticed :something interesting: :Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a :second). :Moz may even be a little bit fas

Re: Riddle - Why does Netscape still exist? Answer - So AOL can sue Microsoft.

On 31 Jan 2002 12:36:57 GMT, Simon P. Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :On 30/01/2002 at 09:29 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :>Business 2.0's Erick Shonfeld (better known as "Future Boy") has :>posted a story nailing AOL Time Warner - the parent company of his :>employer - as only keeping Netscape aliv

What's up with the Talkback server?

Haven't been able to send talkbacks for about the last 24 hours. Is talkback5.netscape.com on and alive and stuff? -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "burger king apple fritters taste like cunt." (siani evans)

Re: Standards compatible web pages?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:45:06 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :But man oh man, talk about Mozillapology! Holy God, :his "Lies, Damned Lies, and MozillaQuest" 'article' has me in stitches! : :"To get technical for just a moment, the total number of bugs [in :Bugzilla] at any given time is a

Re: New Release of Mozilla ??? When ???

On 28 Jan 2002 13:07:58 GMT, DeMoN LaG wrote: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Gerard) wrote in :[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 28 Jan 2002: :> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122083 :Ok, does anyone have any clue what is happening with this bug? I have :

Re: New Release of Mozilla ??? When ???

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:10:38 -0600, dman84 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :its got a few bugs, with SSL, crashes, some other stuff.. hopefully :developers will get this fixed, as then we can move on to resent :problems on the trunk, and 0.9.9 stuff. Here's my Favourite Mozilla Bug So Far: ht

Re: New Release of Mozilla ??? When ???

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:50:27 -0500, grayrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Yeh You-Ying wrote: :> I just downlaod and install the latest release. :> I found it's Mozilla 0.9.8+...But I never saw the announcement recently. :> I would like to know when the 0.9.8 release... :0.9.8 branched last week

Re: Mozilla logo font

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:48:12 -0500, jesus X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Sören Kuklau wrote: :> What's that strange Mozilla logo font? :> http://www.mozillanews.org/images/icons/mozdotorg.png has it, for example. :> Would like to use it for some Moz-related stuff I'm working on. :It's called Rev

HappyWeb - new web standards track

http://www.kibo.com/kibopost/happyweb/ -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "burger king apple fritters taste like c*nt." (siani evans)

Re: Is Mozilla red Communist?

On 23 Jan 2002 13:36:11 GMT, Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :And it came to pass that David Gerard wrote: :> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:36:23 -0600, :> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>:Now you're gonna bully me too? I'm telling! Oh, and is :>:that &

Re: Fetching of /favicon.ico disabled

On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:22:47 -0800, David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Christian Biesinger wrote: :> For all interested parties, the fetching of /favicon.ico has been :> disabled. Neither 0.9.8 nor nightly builds will automatically fetch that :> file. :> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bu

Re: olympics.com

On 19 Jan 2002 17:04:37 GMT, Chris Hoess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :1) Running JS is the cause of basically every browser security hole I've :seen. While I don't do it all the time, I often surf with JS turned off. :(I understand there's a UI bug floating around out there to have a "toggle

Re: Automatic favicon.ico requests

On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:48:51 -0500, Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :why exactly can't you just do 'cp /dev/null /favicon.ico', and :forget about it? ln -s /dev/zero /favicon.ico >;-) -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "A fool and his h

Re: Is Mozilla red Communist?

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:27:08 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Ian Hickson wrote: :> JTK wrote: :> > Lynx doesn't have commie graphics slathered about trying to make :> > some sort of sophomoric "statement". :> Lynx is a text mode browser; it doesn't have _any_ graphics. :No commie ASCII

Re: Mozilla 1.0, project management and help from Peter Bojanic

On 17 Jan 2002 02:59:55 GMT, Mitchell Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :  We are fortunate that Peter Bojanic : ofOEone :has volunteered to assist with some of the project management tasks necessary : for Mozilla 1.0.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, OEone has :built a Mozill

Re: There is a download problem

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:46:04 +0100, Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I admit this is a minor issue, but not totally irrelevant. After all, is :this intricate function not in truth an issue of developers' pride? "See :what we have accomplished!" Has ever any (non-developing) user asked for :it?

Re: Automatic favicon.ico requests

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:12:10 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :"Sören Kuklau" wrote: :> True. I'm not gonna defend the favicon behaviour, but I also consider it :> futile to further bother to complain against it. In other words: You gotta :> live with it. :Right, now let's all say it togeth

Re: Print preview issues

On 12 Jan 2002 14:06:01 GMT, Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :And it came to pass that Christopher Rued wrote: :> David Gerard wrote: :>> My back button is there, but it's greyed out. I'll just try :>> again ... Yep, greyed out and doesn't do anyt

Re: How's 1.0 look?

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:17:30 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:01:03 -0600, :> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> :David Gerard wrote: :> :> He's not useless, just, ahh, socially retarded. :> :How 'bout

Not cleaning up temp files on Win32 was: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:18:24 +1030, David Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :On 10 Jan 2002 05:12:17 GMT, DeMoN LaG wrote: :>I've never hit cancel before, and Mozilla cleans up all it's temp stuff :>when I close it so I don't know if it deletes it on the spot or not. :>Shouldn't be hard for

Re: Print preview issues

On 12 Jan 2002 00:23:47 GMT, Christopher Rued <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> On 11 Jan 2002 23:32:28 GMT, :> David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> :Ooh, ouch. I'm on 2002010803 with a fresh profile (created four hours ago). :> :Just went to &

Re: How's 1.0 look?

On 11 Jan 2002 23:58:36 GMT, Glenn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Some drink from the Fountain of Knowledge; and yet the Tree of Life is :also the choice of some. However, on 12 Jan 2002, David Gerard (amongst :others) drank deeply from netscape.public.mozilla.general and the :fol

Re: Print preview issues

On 11 Jan 2002 23:32:28 GMT, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:38:26 -0500, :Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ::Ben Ruppel wrote: ::> What version of mozilla are you using? It's definitely horked on win32 ::> builds dated january 1

Re: Print preview issues

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:38:26 -0500, Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Ben Ruppel wrote: :> What version of mozilla are you using? It's definitely horked on win32 :> builds dated january 11th. I just crashed it again by hitting back. The :> page layout doesn't complete and I can't scroll

Re: Automatic favicon.ico requests

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:03:06 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:14:57 +0100, :> Jonas Jørgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> :Johnny Yen wrote: :> :> Maybe I'm missing the point here, but given the choice

Re: How's 1.0 look?

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:01:03 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> He's not useless, just, ahh, socially retarded. :How 'bout let's try: "Not afraid to loudly ask the questions the Man :doesn't want asked". Nah, I think "so

Re: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.

On 11 Jan 2002 20:47:59 GMT, Chris Hoess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Gerard wrote: :> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:24:57 +, :> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>:> :Customer Requirements Document :>:> :--

Re: Automatic favicon.ico requests

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:14:57 +0100, Jonas Jørgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Johnny Yen wrote: :> Maybe I'm missing the point here, but given the choice between adding rel=icon> to hundreds of pages or simple dropping a favicon in the root, :> I'll take the favicon. :Do you really have a we

Re: How's 1.0 look?

On 11 Jan 2002 14:59:08 GMT, Mike Koenecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :In article , "Sören Kuklau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :writes: :>"JTK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag :>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... :>> Jonathan Wilson wrote: :>> > > download m

Re: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:24:57 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> :Customer Requirements Document :> :-- :> :After consultation, we have discovered that customers prefer darkness, :> :for energy and cost-saving reasons. This program is therefore entire

Re: How's 1.0 look?

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:19:37 -0500, Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :dman84 wrote: :> sidebar in mail/news content is horked, :"horked"? IMUI, I have no idea what that one means. 'broken', 'non-functional', 'corrupted', etc. -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ ht

Re: [PATCH] Still no indication that a download has failed.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:32:03 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :jesus X wrote: :> "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: :>>LetThereBeLight() :> light = 1 :Customer Requirements Document :-- :After consultation, we have discovered that customers prefer darkness, :f

How's 1.0 look?

On track? I know what the Bugzilla dependency tree looks like, I want to know how it feels to you guys. -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "RPGs are the geek equivalent of test cricket." (Barbarella)

Re: Just curious ...

On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:08:54 -0500, JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : I was just curious to see how often some of you update your Mozilla :builds. I used to daily, cut back now to once per week. (Mondays) I changed every few days a few months ago, just to keep up to date with the then-current n

(fwd) MSIE for PC REAL hotkeys

Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: nu-monet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: alt.slack Subject: MSIE for PC REAL hotkeys Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:35:24 GMT The REAL MSIE Shortcut Keys F1 Tries to load Internet Explorer Help "For the First Time". Fails. Says, "You didn't download help a

Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape

On 21 Dec 2001 07:52:07 GMT, Matthew Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Walter Dnes wrote: :>Gimmee an "F" :>Gimmee an "O" :>Gimmee an "R" :>Gimmee a "K" :>What does that spell ? (Apologies to anybody who was at Woodstock) :> It's too bad I'm not a C programmer, having just

Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:56:59 -0800, Peter Trudelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Ben Bucksch wrote: :> As you can see in this very thread :> , this kind of :> ignorant behaviour is encouraged by their manager. :And this type of comment is forbidden by the newsgroup Ground

Re: Mozilla logo

On 21 Dec 2001 00:20:41 GMT, Magnus W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :DeMoN LaG wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: :> Andrea Monni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in :> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 19 Dec 2001: :>> We should go for a Mozilla version without symbols...

Re: It's December 14th again!

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:58:07 -0600, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Go to CNN one day, go to it a few days later and you'll see the exact :same page until you hit the reload button. Few days being say over the :weekend. Nothing more to it. Are you going through a proxy? If not, are you sure

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

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 06:04:02 -0500, Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Jonathan Wilson wrote: :> I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a good :> thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit does it have :> (other than displaying a pretty little icon

Re: Changes rushed in by Netscape

On 18 Dec 2001 06:05:22 GMT, DeMoN LaG wrote: :I would blame Netscape if the code was checked in by a netscape employee :with no r/sr/a, or if the code was checked in by a netscape employee and :had r/sr/a all with @netscape.com email addresses. That would scream to :me that the change were

Re: Appearing as MSIE 5.2

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 06:10:55 -0500, WDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :So, I thought if I disguised myself as MS5.5, perhaps I would be able to :pick up my email. Wrong! Nothing that I have done to date has been able :to resolve this simple issue. The things that is funny about it, is the :fact

Re: Using Nightlies

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:30:04 +, Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Arthur wrote: :> This must be what you're looking for: :> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/ :No, I can d/l them. I grabbed one yesterday. I just want to clarify how :to install them since they don't include an inst

Re: More useful error messages from Talkback please?

On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:02:24 -0800, Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: : :> Having Talkback tell me: :>"Please check your Proxy Server settings or try again later" :> is not really helpful when the problem is actually that the talkback ser

Re: site kills 0.9.6

On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 14:38:07 -0600, David Croley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Looks like will kill my 0.9.6 win2k :every time. Probably bad javascript? Guess it still shouldn't crash though. Could be http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105619 or one

More useful error messages from Talkback please?

Having Talkback tell me: "Please check your Proxy Server settings or try again later" is not really helpful when the problem is actually that the talkback server is down ... -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "Sorry sunshine, but I have clothe

Re: DOS was Re: Worth it?

On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:42:12 -0700, Chuck Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :DeMoN LaG wrote: :> "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in :> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Dec 2001: :> > I retired the summer after the first version of W-95 came out. We :> > mostl

Re: Accessing new tabs in javascript

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:19:02 +, Geraint Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Rob Allen wrote: :> It would also be nice if the pref made 'target="_blank"' also open in a :> new tab as that is used very often by web sites to open a new window. :This would probably be the ideal solution - if a

Favicon may be dubious as a Mozilla default ...

but by Crikey it's nice for eyecandy, especially when tab-browsing. I'm on build 200808-trunk here. Lots of sites do favicon.ico and it looks REALLY COOL. I would be unsurprised if Netscape wanted this on by default for future releases, even though it would utterly entrench it as a default st

Re: Unexpected Mozilla vendor: lastminute.com

On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:05:28 +, LemNet.com Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> running a September 2001 build of Mozilla. Cool :-) :Running a nightly build you mean? I wonder why they didn't choose the :latest milestone. No idea. It was Mozilla and ha

Re: Mozilla or KDE-browser(Konqueror)?

On 12 Nov 2001 22:05:06 GMT, Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Is it true that the Konqueror browser runs only in Linux? I understand KDE runs on quite a few Unix and Unixlike platforms. But it is for Linux/Unix-like platforms only. Although there has been a port of it to AtheOS (http://www.a

Unexpected Mozilla vendor: lastminute.com

In London Heathrow Airport on Sunday, in between flights - lots of free lastminute.com terminals (nothing else, just kiosks for lastminute.com), running a September 2001 build of Mozilla. Cool :-) If they've got the kiosk thing down, it might be worth asking them for how they did it to a standard

Re: Mozilla Bug Week - October 27th to November 4th

:Bug Week : : From Saturday October 27th to Sunday November 4th, mozilla.org will be :running a "Bug Week". Experienced Mozilla hackers will be available to Well, it had to be my holidays, didn't it. I'll be off enjoying the tourist delights of the UK in late autumn (http://wgw.topmum.c

Re: TAB-browsing broken in recent nightlies

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:13:58 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :for the past couple of days TABBED browsing seems to be *broken*. Bad Tab Day. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101554 One hopes tomorrow's builds will be healthier ... I'm back on 2001101803 for the moment.

Re: Mozilla 1.0: JTK/Hixie performance criteria suggestions?

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:58:51 -0700, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> The goals of our performance criteria are for a user who switches from :> the at-that-point current version of IE to the Mozilla 1.0 build to :> not experience a regression in performance that is greater than a :> f

Mozilla 1.0: JTK/Hixie performance criteria suggestions?

Are the performance criteria outlined a few months ago by JTK, polished up by Gerv and Jesus X and webbed by Hixie under any consideration for Mozilla 1.0? (The idea being, I presume, that stable APIs are not enough, the reference implementation must also work usably.) http://www.damowmow.co

Re: question about sites and moz compaibility, why are banks special?

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:11:59 -0700, Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I've had a similar experience with my bank. Although it's web site :mostly works with Mozilla, I had a problem with the bank's interaction :with Quicken (2001 Deluxe). Whenever I would create a new payee from :Quicken,

Re: question about sites and moz compaibility, why are banks special?

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 07:52:48 +0800, Jonathan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Why do so many people post about banking sites not working with moz? Is :there some particular reason that banks seem to get more press in this :group? Because banks have a 'not invented here' attitude to security

Re: Mozilla form and text handling. Yowza!

On 18 Oct 2001 20:58:26 -0700, Brian Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message :news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... :> Anybody else but me notice that Mozilla's handling of text editing in :> web forms has really taken a major dump recently? I know there were :> some b

Re: Best way to upgrade nightlies...

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:36:59 -0700, Chuck Coulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :What's the best way to install new nightly builds? If I replace the old :folder with the new build, I lose plugins, etc. Thanks. What I do on Windows with talkback zips is: 1. Shut down Mozilla. 2. Rename the fold

Re: mozillazine slashdotting - crikey!

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:34:41 -0500, Eric Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> Um, wow. So, anyone know when it'll be back? :> (I recall that somethingawful.com redirected all queries from slashdot.org :> to an offensive site ... probably wouldn't be

Re: Mozilla on NT 3.51?

On 17 Oct 2001 02:09:31 GMT, Roderick F. Lazaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :>Yes, I know it's a silly idea. But I want to run Mozilla on NT 3.51. :>Most modern win32 apps do in fact run just fine on 3.51, if you sprinkle :>the right DLLs around the pro

Re: When did tabs creep in?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:34:17 -0400, Ben Ruppel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Gene Wilson wrote: :> Does anyone know if you can use a keyboard shortcut to switch between tabs? :ctrl-tab is supposed to do it, but it doesn't work on my win32 system. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?i

Re: My site is not working in Netscape! Why!? Anyone know?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:43:33 -0700, Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :"Jonas Jørgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message :news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... :> I am *so* tired of Communicator 4.x questions in this group. Why isn't :> "mozilla" a top-level usenet hierarchy (or whatever it's cal

mozillazine slashdotting - crikey!

Um, wow. So, anyone know when it'll be back? (I recall that somethingawful.com redirected all queries from slashdot.org to an offensive site ... probably wouldn't be the Right Thing to do in this case ;-) -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/http://www.rocknerd.org/ "May you

Re: performance

On 3 Oct 2001 01:32:05 GMT, DeMoN LaG wrote: :Jay Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in :[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Oct 2001: :> Win2k but shows as NT 5.1 in the User-Agent String. :Why? I have Win 2k SP2 installed and my UA string is Windows NT 5.0, :not 5.1... Just cu

Re: Themes fun: how to tell 0.9.4 that LittleMozilla works with it?

On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:31:18 +0200, Alfred Kayser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Way to fix things manually: edit all-skins.rdf in the chrome dir of the :profile dir, and change the 'skinVersion' values for LittleMozilla to 0.9.4 Um. What I did was change every occurrence of the string "littlemoz

Re: is mozilla stable?

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:36:59 +0800, Jonathan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I am currently using netscape communicator 4.76 on windows ME and I am :thinking of upgrading to either netscape 6 or mozilla. I have heard bad :things about the new browsers with regard to stability, compatibility :a

Themes fun: how to tell 0.9.4 that LittleMozilla works with it?

Got LittleMozilla from themes.org ... 0.9.4 refuses to believe that this theme is actually advanced enough to work with it, even though the listing on themes.org claims it has been updated in the past few days. So, what do I fiddle with in the LittleMozilla .jar to get 0.9.4 to accept it? -- h

Re: 0.9.4 doesn't display images properly

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:00:32 +0200, Fabian Schach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : I've found that 0.9.4 doesn't display photographs on websites : properly. In IE5 they show properly. In 0.9.4 they are blurred and : don't display colours properly. The text part of the page is fine. :>>

Re: Spell Checker Please

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:40:34 -0600, Aaron Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I must have missed something here. How exactly did a discussion about :mozilla's lack of a spell checker turn into a flame war on US foreign :policy? Is Gervase's sig quote filed in Bugzilla? -- http://thingy.a

Re: [OFF-TOPIC]Re: Mozilla is not an end user application--huh?

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:01:49 -0400, Ben Ruppel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Funny, you know those people who are starving in the desert? Maybe it's :because they're living in the freakin' desert! Bad water, no water? Is :this the result of US foreign policy? No, this is how things were and

Re: Completely removing 0.9.3 before installing 0.9.4?

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:13:50 +0200, Fabian Schach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > I uninstalled 0.9.3 and deleted the Java directory as well, wishing : > to do as clean an install of 0.9.4 as possible. Installed 0.9.4. : > The profile appears to be the same, and it even still has the : > 'Wood' th

Bwahaha ...

What a nice time it is to have moderator points on Slashdot :-) -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "Granted, by that time in the movie, I was curled up in the fetal position as the sheer banality of this film crashed over me like fetid waves of sewa

Completely removing 0.9.3 before installing 0.9.4?

I uninstalled 0.9.3 and deleted the Java directory as well, wishing to do as clean an install of 0.9.4 as possible. Installed 0.9.4. The profile appears to be the same, and it even still has the 'Wood' theme applied ... What files do I search and destroy to kill an old Mozilla utterly? -- http

Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:56:06 -0400, WDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I need to log on to my email at work; however, Mozilla doesn't log in :properly to Microsoft Outlook Web Access. Does anyone have a clue as to :how long before this is corrected? You see, I'm having to go back and :use that

Re: mozilla/netscape logo for websites (bug 32218)

On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 16:43:45 -0400, kang4321 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> The polite and civilised way is not to use symbols which offend even a :> minority, unless there are overwhelming historical reasons for doing so :> in the given context. Do we really think that the red star is an :> in

Re: mozilla/netscape logo for websites

On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 17:48:13 -0400, jesus X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Jacek Piskozub wrote: :> The problem is there are still some some people around (like me) who had :> to live in the shadow of this very symbol. It's not funny for me. Rather :> pathetic. :yes, but that symbol was appropriate

Re: Accessing E-mail from outside my company

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:57:15 -0500, Jason Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> The above isn't enough detail to tell. However, I would be interested to :> know: is the remote email program Outlook Web Access? :> My interest is because I use the d*mn thing all day every day at work ... :> and it

Re: Accessing E-mail from outside my company

On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:12:32 -0400, WDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Can anyone help me. My company gave me a set of instruction, on how to :log on and get my email, using IE 5.0 or greater. Following are some of :the instructions provided: :"Once you are in the Internet Options screen, click

Re: Capital One's web site

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 20:44:24 +0300, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jerry Baker :<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> Plain old password validation is fine if done over SSL. :Why are all the American banks so scared then? :-) Because banks have an almost inc

Re: Mozilla 1.0? Shouldn't it be 5.0

On 17 Aug 2001 18:58:34 GMT, Hall Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Yeap, someone who reads their webserver's log files will see :that... Wait, joe-user doesn't run a webserver. :What the general public sees is that they're running Internet :Explorer v5.x, Netscape v4.xx, or Netscape v6.x. Or

Re: Review of Netscape 6.1 (very positive)

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:05:48 -0500, Paul Bergsagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Please check out this review of Netscape 6.1 for the Mac. It is very :positive. The reviewer seems to feel this is the best browser yet (not :simply the best netscape browser, but best of all available browser :choi

Re: What's the deal with Mike Angelo

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:01:57 -0500, Paul Bergsagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I appear to be out of the loop. What is the the goal of Mozilla quest. :Is Mike Angelo actually folowing the Mozilla project or simply :practicing journalism National Inquisitor style? Is he for real or a joke?

Re: Mozilla and Windows Resources

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:43:49 GMT, Ben Justice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :My mistake, maybe I got Mozilla confused with the "Geko" engine or :something like that. Seems like I read that thing was lean and mean. :I just want a non-bulky browser that loads quickly and consumes a minimum :of memo

Re: So when's 0.9.2.1?

On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 12:36:42 -0400, Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :David Gerard wrote: :> Netscape 6.1 is up on the ftp site again (though not announced on the :> page). So what sort of time frame will 0.9.2.1 be arriving in? :0.9.2.1??? 0.9.3 is out and available And I

So when's 0.9.2.1?

Netscape 6.1 is up on the ftp site again (though not announced on the page). So what sort of time frame will 0.9.2.1 be arriving in? -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/http://www.rocknerd.org/ "Fill a condom up with conditioner and leave it on the floor." (MistressM revenge

Plugins (was Installing a new Mozilla Release)

On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:55:28 -0500, Jerry Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :I think a lot of the problem with installing plugins has to do with the :plugin installer itself. Most plugins look for IE and Netscape (and :perhaps others), but don't look to install themselves in Mozilla. :I no longer

Re: Mozilla's rendering of slightly buggy HTML

On 6 Aug 2001 06:10:09 -0700, Jason Bassford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> Someone figured that allowing deeper nesting would make a stack overflow :> somewhere. (It has happened. That's why the limit was put in.) : So it shows as much as it can without crashing. An excellent :explanation. :

Re: Mozilla's rendering of slightly buggy HTML

On 5 Aug 2001 20:50:08 GMT, Dave Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, :Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>(XML is another story.) OTOH, increasing the stack limit to allow even :>more broken pages is most likely not worth the effort. Authors should :>just f

Re: Collected addresses...

On 6 Aug 2001 07:12:52 GMT, richard snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Esben Mose Hansen wrote: :> when I installed 0.92 the collected addresses were lost and the :> addresses stopped being collected. I finally fixed it by creating a new :> profile. :> Now I've installed 0.93, and besides skyPil

Re: Mozilla's rendering of slightly buggy HTML

On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:06:55 -0400, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Christopher Jahn wrote: :> So what you're saying is that since you're too lazy to write :> good code, Mozilla should have many more lines of code to :> overcome your laziness? :In my opinion, Opera is a good example of a brow

Re: Web page

On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:41:49 +, Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Can anyone see the content on this page in Mozilla 0.9.2? :http://www.asktog.com/columns/049Lawyers.html :For me, the page flickers in and out and refuses to load permanently. I :don't know whether this is a page design proble

Re: Netscape 6.1 Opens in same instance

On 29 Jul 2001 12:42:14 GMT, Matthew Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :Scott wrote: :> I just installed Netscape 6.1 beta and I am having a problem when I :> start it from a shortcut. It opens in the same window as the :> currently open window instead of starting a new browser window. :> How do