Phil said:
> we know it's being worked on. I suppose it might be better
> to collect url and pages of test when possible
Well that wouldn't work for me, unless I told Olli et al
my Windows 2000 login password (and NO you aren't getting it!)
> (or even js routines)
If they affect elements of pages etc. how are they going
to check? Especially with frames style ones (the ones I'm
having trouble with)
> cause reporting that or that site doesn't work ok or crashes
>
> 1) might not be true on their current version
In which case they can say "it's fixed and will be released
soon". It's not like they'll have to RE-fix it :)
> 2) doesn't help 'bugs' to be grouped together (imagine you
> have to debug a browser and have hundreds of url reported
> not to work ) - anyway jserrorlogs must be better for this
The JSERROR.LOG is as informative as a book with no pages for
the parent classes :) It just says "invalid" which obviously
means "not implemented yet".
> When there is a more complete version things might turn
> different...
What's the point of having a beta browser with a beta
JS compiler if nobody reports bugs 'til the full release?
--
Matt Sealey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Distributed Systems Support
Computer Centre
University of Leicester
____________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - Info & Archive: http://www.vapor.com/
For Listserver Help: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "HELP"
To Unsubscribe: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UNSUBSCRIBE"
