Slashdot Mirror

Because both iPhone and Android native browsers are webkit, web authors are only using -webkit- CSS prefixes resultinig in all other browser vendors deciding to implement -webkit- prefix parsing

The BlueGriffon author wrote a Firefox extension that implemented IE's WebSlices called WebChunks for Firefox 3.5, and as you can tell from how popular it was, he never updated it.

I think you're full of it. Microsoft is a key committed member of the CSS WG and continue to work in good faith helping the group.

Yeah, that must be why people were getting out of the CSS WG because of Microsoft's behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4

Since you're big on the whole standards thing, you might like to know that IE8 is the only fully CSS 2.1 standards compliant browser at the moment.

Nope. That is a blatant lie if I ever saw one.

With regard to ECMAScript4, Microsoft had some fundamental differences with whether it was worth expanding the language considering the legacy baggage and the need to add modern scripting features.

Actually, ECMAScript 4 was seen as a threat against Silverlight: 1, 2

Urgh, I hate these links to useless tech news websites, rather than the original sources. To see what the Mozilla executives in question actually had to say, with their words in context, read Mitchell Baker: Browser Soup and Chrome Frame and Mike Shaver: thoughts on chrome frame.

And as a bonus, from a Mozilla-technology using developer (I don't think he's affiliated with Mozilla in any official capacity anymore) Daniel Glazman: Google Chrome Frame.

And within hours there is already a Firefox extension that does everything Microsoft Activities does - http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2008/03/07/microsoft-activities-for-firefox-new-version/
There is a web slices extension in development already too - http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?post/2008/03/07/WebSlices-in-Firefox-2

It looks like IE8 will use improved standards mode for HTML5 as described above, and will also do so for newer XHTML doctypes also. Now MS should drop the meta tag idea entirely. It's not needed after all anyway.

Seems like an as-yet unsolved problem.

There have been proposals to have a centralized mozilla bounty system at mozilla.org, but they've been dismissed as WONTFIX in anticipation of human conflict becoming distracting to those with authority over the code base.

Some, like Mark Shuttleworth, once held hope for more support for bounties from Mozilla, such as a bugzilla feature to associate bounties with bugs. That hope seems to have disappeared.

Mozilla-related Wiki attempts have also disappeared, and the other websites out there seem to lack critical mass.

However, Mozilla has started a limited bounty program for security bugs, with help from long-time bounty advocate Mark Shuttlesworth.

As far as the mechanics of moving money around, http://fundable.org/ might be an option.

other sites
----------
http://bountycounty.org/
http://www.opensourcexperts.com/bountylist.html?bo untytype=1&cat=33
http://croczilla.com/zap/bounties/

Web 2.0 is an empty buzzword for the evolution of the internet. There is no single event that can be unequivocably be called the atart of "Web 2.0".

According to Daniel Glazman, Tim Berners-Lee has officially given up on XHTML as of last week's W3C Advisory Committee meeting in Tokyo, and then apparently explains what Web 3.0 is supposed to be.

TBL is apparently not the visionary we all thought he was. Apparently no one in the W3C can (or is willing to) figure out how to relegate HTML to the junk heap, like a 286 computer: it was a good idea at the time, but newer technology has come along. Eventually, someone will want to see one in a museum. Contrary to popular reports, the W3C has not fixed itself, but merely rolled back the clock on itself a decade or so.

After 8 years, what do all the developers who embraced XHTML get for our efforts? Our smorgasboard of web standards becomes a (tag) soup kitchen once again.

Web 2.0 is a fleeting concept with no substance, it's existence can only be inferred by serruptitiously attributing semi-related events to its influence. Now that the inventor of the WWW has bought into this folly, and simultaneously abandoned one of the W3C's greatest achievements, how can anyone put any stock in what he or anyone else at W3C says?

I held out longer than most in my hopes that web standards could be straightened out, but now the W3C is dead by its own hand, after 6 or more years of atrophy, manic depression, and schizophrenia.

regarding IE7 and its "usability", found this interesting: IE 7b2, a UI report

Hah maybe I sell out in trying to be controversial. But no I do have some real opinions on Firefox that usually get modded out of side. Here they arel, following my story.

In 2003 , back when I used Windows, and wasn't that geeky at all, I installed an 'alternative' browser at hte recommendation of my brother. This was Firebird 0.7. I liked it. It was faster than IE. He showed me how to use the tabs (using TBE) and how it blocked ads (adblock). I was impressed by the good many geeky features that made it useful - find as you type, style sheet changing, the search bar, clever bookmarks, easy restoring of tabs.

I thought this was a brilliant browser for geeks. And each version was an improvement, despite change in name.

I got caught up in the excitement. How Firefox 1.0 was going to be amazing and everyone would use it. Then around the 1.0 prerelease (sep 2004) things start to go wrong. I think this is explained best in the stylesheet changer issue. If you remember the old Firebird, down in the bottom right there was a button on websites to change stylesheets for those that had alternate ones avaliable. This is almost forgotten now as a result.

What happende. The firefox devs proposed removnig geeky features - this switcher, work offline the javascript console and even view source to supposedly make it easier for IE users to switch. There was firefox user outrage read http://blog.codefront.net/archives/2004/08/25/no-a lternate-stylesheet-switcher-in-firefox-10/ http://glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?2004/ 08/24/513-is-firefox-going-nuts-or-what and even asa (sensible firefox dev) was unhappy http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/006265 .html

After extreme public outrage. They put the switcher back in. Between 1.0 PR and 1.0 See http://blog.codefront.net/archives/2004/09/11/alte rnate-stylesheet-ui-is-back-in-firefox/ Other geeky things were kept we thought.

But that wasn't true. 1.0 shipped without the stylesheet changer, but they got away with it, becauuse we were caught up in the hysteria. The decision to target IE users over their old userbase had been made. I don't know if you've used an out-the-box Firefox, but it's not much fun. It acts like IE. No single-window mode, (tabs + windows is ridiculously confusing), find as you type disabled, giant IE like buttons, links underline etc...

It was the change of target chosen by Mozilla from the powered user to the convert IE users on Windows. That doesn't mean you have to reproduce IE in everyway. Disabling find as you type, tabs by default. Even rearranging the buttons. IE users aren't dumb. They can cope with change.

The evangelical thing gets to me. Spreadfirefox preaches only to the converted. It's not about the freedom of choice GNU but about destroying competition. They'd promote Firefox over any other alternate browser, encouraging sites to support Firefox, not to support standards.

And even though I really hadn't got into Linux then. I see another sell out here. Mozilla was about Linux. It came as the default suite on many a distro. Then windows bugs became a priority - 1.0 for linux was a mess.

Do you know animal farm? Or the russian revolution. How we're promised everything, only for values to be sold out, to arrive at hypocrisy, and perhaps no better than what we had before.

http://glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?2005/ 08/13/1165-meteor-impact

So how does the Sea Monkey web editor compare to Nvu? If it's better, that'll really suck having to download a whole suite just for that one component.

Updated code from 2002 is missing for some reason. Who knows what else isn't right/secure.

From Planet Mozilla: D.Glazman blog

Cons:
...
3. stricter division of workforce between "mozilla products" that generate revenue, and "mozilla projects" that don't generate revenue, potentially disadvantaging the latter.

I hope this is not true. I'd hate to see a firefox Pro version that you need to buy, and a separate lesser free version of firefox.

Remember the fresh madness of blind feature destruction before Firefox 1.0 as the Mozilla team tried to relaunch their geeky browser for use by the average windows/IE user?

They took out the Javascript console, the stylesheet switcher, and even view source in some trunk builds. There was a huge uproar at this betrayal. Ditching the needs of the majority of the current userbase, loyal geeks, to make Firefox 'easier' for new users switching from IE. Petitions with hundreds of names were signed, and eventually, some of these were put back in.

We won some features back, but not at all. Many compromises were made, with features such as "find as you type" disabled by default (despite later winning browser feature of the year (even more impressive since it's not at all new)). These appalling default options make Firefox a pain to reconfigure a new profile from scratch. They don't make it easier for anybody. The navigation bar comes with giant icons, links are all underlined, and extensions are now a mission to install unless it's from update.mozilla.org And extensions are needed just to restore expected functionality - proper (XUL) error pages, a full tree in the add bookmark menu, copy image to clipboard, resumable downloads.

An old post, commenting on the fall of Firefox.
http://glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?2004/ 08/24/513-is-firefox-going-nuts-or-what

We need a Firefox forwards not back campaign. Firefox is in danger of becoming a dumbed down browser for Windows/IE users and perhaps no better (default prefs / no extensions) come IE 7. The Mozilla suite (Seamonkey) remained safe for geeks, but now it's discontinued and they don't even provide .rpm's for Firefox.

We need a community fork of Firefox where the voice of the user is valued above media attention. Else we rely on the last remaining working Firefox developer not owned by Google to save us all.

According to this blog entry by Daniel Glazman of Nvu fame, the ubuntu LiveCD destroyed his MBR Can anybody confirm/deny such behaviour by Ubuntu's LiveCD or LiveCD's in general (don't they mount hard disks read-only)

Nvu developper is Daniel Glazman, not Glassman. See his weblog

The composer is alive and it's being maintained actively.

The current version is 1.0-Beta, and it's much better than any alternative I've seen in the OSS world, much better than mozilla's equivalent. Take a look or download it.

1. MoFo doesn't want to have to fully support two differant projects; they don't have the resources to do that. So it's proposed that there won't be a 1.8 final release, as that would take a lot of QA work and entail still more work later on to keep up with security patches.
2. Obviously some people don't like this. Oddly enough most of them are users of the suite.
3. Several developers have stated that mofo shouldn't continue suite releases, at least not in the same way. None of them have suggested spinning firefox off into a seperate foundation.
4. Slashdot has posted an inflammatory article about the issue; very few people commenting have bothered to go to the primary sources to see whats going on. (Surprise! :))

Here's a couple of people who are happy about the possiblity of Mozilla being discontinued.

earlier I did post story on this subject and get rejected , then I submitted the same story at OSNews here , it's on front page there hours ago, wtf slashdot?
anyway, this is text of story:
In sad news for people who prefer Mozilla Suite over Firefox, seems will be there no Mozilla Suite 1.8 Final while developers already start talking about fork , others are just happy over the situation. More here.

blogspot.com is a free hosting site for blogger.com weblogs. Saying "a review at blogspot.com" is like saying "a review at geocities.com" - it's meaningless, as anyone could have written it. If Slashdot is going to link to random bloggers, at least make it clear that the author is a random blogger as opposed to part of some semi-legitimate sounding site.

At any rate, the reviews by Danial Glazman (author of Nvu and Mozilla Composer) and Blake Ross (of the Firefox team) are far more enlightening.

Sigh... link got lost...

http://glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?2005/ 01/20/831-printing-xml-why-css-is-better-than-xsl

Hope you manage to resurrect composer too...

Composer is actually being worked on by Daniel Glazman as a standalone product called Nvu.

The title says it all. MPL/GPL/LGPL as promised. Get it there.

And this dialog has the Netscape logo.

Lindows will be releasing it under the Mozilla license. And, they've contracted a ex-Netscape employee (Daniel Glazman) to be the lead developer.

Read here for more and past information:
Lindows.com Announces Mozilla-Based Nvu...
Lindows.com Contracts Daniel Glazman to Develop...
Daniel Glazman Starting Company to Develop Composer

MozillaZine has an article about Nvu with some tasty details.

Michael Robertson, CEO of Lindows.com, has announced that his company is starting a project to build an easy-to-use Web publishing product for Linux. The new application, called Nvu (pronounced 'N-view'), will be based on Mozilla Composer and released under the Mozilla Public License. Lindows.com has contracted Daniel Glazman of Disruptive Innovations to be the lead developer, though the company hopes to attract other contributors. Version 1.0 of Nvu is expected in the first quarter of 2004. See the Nvu FAQ for more information.

So, it's based on Mozilla Composer, the lead of developer of Composer will be on board and it's going to be released until the Mozilla Public License. Could it get any better?