With the latest upgrade to 2.09, Google docs is now showing in "basic
HTML" mode and is uneditable. SeaMonkey is being detected as a
noncompliant browser.
This has not happened before. Nothing else had changed on my system (OSX
10.6.4)
Doug Fisher
Doug Fisher wrote:
With the latest upgrade to 2.09, Google docs is now showing in "basic
HTML" mode and is uneditable. SeaMonkey is being detected as a
noncompliant browser.
This has not happened before. Nothing else had changed on my system (OSX
10.6.4)
Doug Fisher
That has been going on sin
Arnie Goetchius wrote:
Doug Fisher wrote:
With the latest upgrade to 2.09, Google docs is now showing in "basic
HTML" mode and is uneditable. SeaMonkey is being detected as a
noncompliant browser.
This has not happened before. Nothing else had changed on my system (OSX
10.6.4)
Doug Fisher
Th
Doug Fisher wrote:
>With the latest upgrade to 2.09,
>Google docs is now showing in "basic HTML" mode
>and is uneditable.
>SeaMonkey is being detected as a noncompliant browser.
>
Bitch to Google loud and long
about their incompetence doing browser sniffing.
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.s
> JeffM wrote:
Doug Fisher wrote:
With the latest upgrade to 2.09,
Google docs is now showing in "basic HTML" mode
and is uneditable.
SeaMonkey is being detected as a noncompliant browser.
Bitch to Google loud and long
about their incompetence doing browser sniffing.
http://groups.google.com/g
Doug Fisher wrote:
>I wish SM could figure get on more compliant lists
> - or figure out a way to work around this.
>
What I wish is that people would stop
blaming a browser that works PERFECTLY on properly-build sites
when that browser encounters a site built by an incompetent bozo
who should be d
JeffM wrote:
Doug Fisher wrote:
I wish SM could figure get on more compliant lists
- or figure out a way to work around this.
What I wish is that people would stop
blaming a browser that works PERFECTLY on properly-build sites
when that browser encounters a site built by an incompetent bozo
wh
JeffM wrote:
Doug Fisher wrote:
I wish SM could figure get on more compliant lists
- or figure out a way to work around this.
What I wish is that people would stop
blaming a browser that works PERFECTLY on properly-build sites
when that browser encounters a site built by an incompetent bozo
wh
>JeffM wrote:
>>Contact the jackass who can't built a proper Web page.
>>Direct your bile at the moron who obviously
>>doesn't do proper testing on the crap pages he produces.
>
Ed Mullen wrote:
>Err, contact, perhaps, a commenter who can get his verb tenses right?
>
Have I erred in ASSuMEing
that
On Oct 27, 10:37 pm, JeffM wrote:
> >JeffM wrote:
> >>Contact the jackass who can't built a proper Web page.
> >>Direct your bile at the moron who obviously
> >>doesn't do proper testing on the crap pages he produces.
>
> Ed Mullen wrote:
> >Err, contact, perhaps, a commenter who can get his verb
Ed Mullen wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Doug Fisher wrote:
Yes, I've created new profiles. But, I have hundreds of customizations
(outside of extensions and plugins) of the UI and through the
about:config interface. And no way to compare them. I do about:config
and can't export the result in any way
Daniel wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Doug Fisher wrote:
Yes, I've created new profiles. But, I have hundreds of customizations
(outside of extensions and plugins) of the UI and through the
about:config interface. And no way to compare them. I do about:config
and can't export the re
On 10/26/2010 10:00 PM, d...@kd4e.com wrote:
Or just condemn them to a well-deserved irrelevancy and
stop using anything associated with them.
There is little that they do that someone else does not do.
Why bother?
Because you often don't get a choice because someone else picks for you.
For e
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:09:47 -0400, /Ed Mullen/:
Daniel wrote:
Hey, ED, rather than looking at about:config, have you considered
comparing/operating on the various prefs.js files??
I've tried that too. The prefs.js file is about 60kb. Sorting through it
line-by-line in a side-by-side comparison
Ed Mullen wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Hey, ED, rather than looking at about:config, have you considered
comparing/operating on the various prefs.js files??
I've tried that too. The prefs.js file is about 60kb. Sorting through it
line-by-line in a side-by-side comparison is really head-ache producing.
The latest version is now SeaMonkey 2.0.10
HTH ;-)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
16 matches
Mail list logo
