David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/15/12 4:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/15/12 3:44 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
But I still have no clear recollection of the Seamonkey team
approaching this list with ideas for future versions of Seamonkey
and asking for feedback on acceptability.
For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would probably
bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is way too
slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about that). Anyway,
in this case that doesn't really matter since, as Callek said, the
change was made in core code by core (read: Firefox) developers. In such
cases, unless they provide a preference to disable the new behavior that
we could flip, there's not much we can do (other than forking code,
which is stupid). [Please ignore the aspect that it wasn't mentioned in
our relnotes, that was just an oversight.]
Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or on
SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we
provide meeting notes on the wiki).
Could you please let me (us) know whether that is the norm, or are
all decisions as to the evolutionary route taken by a central cadre
without seeking the advice and opinions of the subscribers to this
list ?
Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in the
respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that I
don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback on
technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place of
further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we have
mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes that
cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code), discussion might
happen here (but no guarantee).
HTH
Jens
Was there a bug report on this in bugzilla.mozilla.org? If so, what was
the bug number?
Never mind. It's bug #376997 at
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376997>.
And that bug makes a very wrong assumption that stand-alone images
appear against a white background. They appear against the user's
chosen background color, pale green in my case.
That was going to be one of my suggestions for getting around the new
display "feature" - setting a user selected background in the
Appearance/Color pref. But that still doesn't solve the interface
problem for people whom require the image to be displayed in a specific
location.
I noticed this change right away, but the odd thing for me was that it
seemed to work for some sites and still display the old way for
others...so I'm wondering, does the site content provider have some
control over this display mode?
I happen to like the new display mode, but I can understand those whom
don't and why they might not. The FF people are probably going to get
some feedback...
--
- Rufus
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
