Slashdot Mirror

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 097

No, and from responses to previous times this question has been asked (it gets asked at least once every time someone mentions Minimo...), porting to Palm OS 5.x or below would be very hard. There was speculation that Palm OS 6 would make it a bit easier (but it'd still require someone to invest a bunch of time...)

Dan East

Exactly what I was thinking, but according to the comments on this earlier Mozillazine article, there is no planned Palm OS 5 port.

I just noticed that Minimo for WinCE can already be downloaded at http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 097.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24697 4

nsPRUint32Key::Clone() const ()

/**
* nsHashtable is OBSOLETE. Use nsTHashtable or a derivative instead.
*/

They've discovered our super-secret technique for extending Firefox!

Faster? yes I would say it is faster than IE, it depends on your computer. I would also like to say that if it is slower than IE on your computer, just take a little time to 'tune' your ff. Cleaner? yes as in the code base which is smaller than IE and provides more features than IE. Also in the sense that you dont have to clean your computer after you surf.

Doesn't Mozilla have an IRC channel for development questions, or mailing lists for the various components?

I guess it was a rethorical question but in case anyone wonders:
irc.mozilla.org have channels such as #firefox and #mozilla, Mozillazine forums covering all topics related to Mozilla.

Further to the sibling post, Mozillazine's Extensions Dev page has a wealth of fantastic resources for creating stuff. Once you get into the nitty-gritty, XULPlanet is mighty handy (and probably constitutes a lot of the "documentation" you require. Also, O'Reilly's Mozilla book is available free online.

Somewhat related to the branding question, another Mozilla problem:

RMS wants to rebrand Firefox.

This thing will surely appear soon as another sensationalist Slashdot headline.

I'd argue that they are indeed investing credible resources (if not "pumping money") into important parts of desktop infrastructure.

Robert Love working on HAL.
Robert O'Callahan working on Mozilla.
David Reveman working on Glitz/Cairo
Etc, etc.

Mitchell Baker is opening Mozilla China Center. FYI, English translation is here.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2256 01/

The new Firefox autoupdate should be available around March 7th. Firefox 1.0 users who aren't experienced in handling profiles during the uninstall/reinstall process may want to wait. Autoupdate will install the 1.0.1 patch automatically and preserve all current settings, without the need to uninstall/reinstall The Autoupdate feature should already be set on, as it is the default setting for Firefox 1.0. You can check for proper settings through: TOOLS ... OPTIONS ... ADVANCED ... SOFTWARE UPDATES ... check the boxes for "Periodically Check for Updates" for Firefox and My Extensions/Themes. Another setting to check is TOOLS ... OPTIONS ... WEB FEATURES ... CHECK "allow site to install software"

They started rolling it out for windows only but they had the cancel it. Linux and Mac users were getting the windows only code and that was causing problems so it was disabled. It is now back for windows users.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/

Supposedly. By my reading of Asa's blog, if you use the en-US version (most of Slashdot), then you should be able to get an update. Specifically, check out the entries localized 1.0.1 updates and another try at update.

However, I use the en-US version, and my Firefox refuses to auto-update. So it doesn't appear to be working for everyone. (I'm behind a firewall, if that matters.)

Supposedly. By my reading of Asa's blog, if you use the en-US version (most of Slashdot), then you should be able to get an update. Specifically, check out the entries localized 1.0.1 updates and another try at update.

However, I use the en-US version, and my Firefox refuses to auto-update. So it doesn't appear to be working for everyone. (I'm behind a firewall, if that matters.)

Supposedly. By my reading of Asa's blog, if you use the en-US version (most of Slashdot), then you should be able to get an update. Specifically, check out the entries localized 1.0.1 updates and another try at update.

However, I use the en-US version, and my Firefox refuses to auto-update. So it doesn't appear to be working for everyone. (I'm behind a firewall, if that matters.)

There is.

Asa mentioned something about server problems and activating the update for 1.0.1 later, and indeed it did show up today. Granted, it's a week since the release and that's a long time for security update... And windows-only apparently, though Linux users probably update trough their native package systems anyway.

His blog has more.

The thing that sucks is that there is no update button in Firefox 1.0. Well, there is, but it only updates the Extensions when I run it. That could lead the average user to believe that they have already updated their browser. Will this be fixed in Firefox 1.1? Or should I file it?

It looks like they are aware of these problems and are working on them.

Also, with the recent IDN spoofing issue, Mozilla rushed out a bad hack which was supposed to be a fix, apparently just to make some nice headline in the press. And it got flamed by the rest of the world.

That Register article is wrong in almost every detail. They pulled it from the front page a few hours after it was published, and it hasn't reappeared.

Gerv

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by #1, but #3 is available via extensions like Session Saver or Crash Recovery or by bookmarking groups of tabs. #4 is also available as an extension called FlashBlock.

Not any more than Mozilla is/will be.

Note that the vulnerability in that last link was marked "confidential" for five years. Rather Microsoft-ish.

Because Mozilla doesn't have a bittorrent client? :)

Not to mention that the software updater doesn't know to update yet - they havn't turned on software update in fear of overloading the server. See here, if you havn't seen it already from all the other comments here.

I found a forum post of someone having the exact same issue as you and someone replied it may be because they installed Firefox 1.0.1 on top of an existing 1.0 installation.

I found a forum post of someone having the exact same issue as you and someone replied it may be because they installed Firefox 1.0.1 on top of an existing 1.0 installation.

It's a hidden preference. It's not supposed to be exposed in the GUI. Go to about:config and look at all the hidden prefs. If they all had a front-end, the preference window would look like, well, the mozilla suite.

Think about it for a second. Your browser allows identical-to-the-eye domain names via a spoofing security issue. Your workaround is to put big "!!!" marks before and after the domain name when it's possible that the user could be spoofed. But really, some people would rather take the risk of getting tricked than have to look at those damn exclamation marks, so you give them a hidden preference.

Would you, a user interface designer, put this pref in the Options panel? If so, where would you put it?

If you answered yes to the first question, where would you put browser.blink_allowed? I'm sure somebody somewhere wants that pref exposed. How about browser.chrome.site_icons? "Man, if those little per-site icons don't drive me crazy. I wish I could turn them off, and heaven forbid I type the word chrome, because that's just not acceptable UI."

Without looking, can you tell me 5 of the options listed in IE's Advanced tab in it's options pane? Since you can't, does that make it good UI that they've exposed those prefs to the user? Don't you think that allowing a "hidden" feature, about:config, to play with all the prefs is an acceptable compromise to facilitate a simple, yet effective UI?

People like you are reasons why the suite is what it was a year ago. People like Ben Goodger are the reasons why Firefox is objectively better than the suite for almost all people.

If you've read this far, maybe you would read the Firefox Charter, with their stated goals.

From Asa's Blog:

"We're still working on some with the application update infrastructure and the installer so for the first few days, we'll only be offering the release via full download at the website and then turning on the automatic update system hopefully sometime next week."

This appears to be everybody against inertia; and Microsoft appears to be on the side of inertia. As another example, Dave Hyatt (a development lead on Apple's Safari) posted a tale about similar problems dealing with the inertia of the float handling in CSS:

Next I tried WinIE, and this is the part that blew my mind. Depending on whether the float was an image or a table, the float was left or right aligned, the table specified that it floated via the align attribute or the float CSS property, and on whether or not the normal flow element was declared as a sibling or not of the float, I could get completely different results! The level of inconsistency was astonishing.

I was able to watch WinIE do clipping in one case, to wrap in a second case, to not wrap in a third case, to overwrite content in a fourth case, all by just tweaking the parameters outlined above. It's no wonder Web designers have no idea how to code a page to standards when they have to deal with a layout engine that is so horribly inconsistent and buggy.

Don't count Macromedia out. Over 98 percent of browsers have the flash player installed -- which is to say that if you design your website in flash (something that taken in moderation might be a good idea!) you have the best chance of having consistent look and feel across browsers. You also have a far richer webforms interface than straight HTML, with one implementation -- which is the aluring goal of the WHAT-WG and the absolutely insane W3C group it is trying to co-opt.

the links to PDF's are 404's... why? well, developer.netscape.com was taken down.. I forget the exact reasons but here is a post about it on mozillazine [devedge went down, then came back, but is now down again]:
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=5 709

and here is a post I made on a forum with links to the pdf's[if the links are broken, I suggest googling the filename].
http://www.codingforums.com/showpost.php?p=243691& postcount=15

Truthfully I've downloaded Firefox several times but at separate workstations (where it is still being used).

The thing we have to think about is that we are counting version 1.0 only. It isn't like they are counting milestone (nightly) releases either, so we are pretty much counting people who entered the Mozilla.org homepage (or www.getfirefox.com) and downloaded Firefox. It may be pretty close.

Think about it though. Software companies who want to charge for software, charge "per seat" (at minimum). I mean, if I dual-boot and run Firefox in both operating systems I think it should count twice. No matter we all know that Gecko is the future.

That's not a link, that's a URL, and it's perverted by slashcode which adds spaces to words that are too long, making it useless for copy and paste.

A link would be something like http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 073

Yes they have. Or at least somebody working for MoFo has.

Inside Firefox by the lead engineer for Mozilla Firefox.

"Will this be the last gasp of a dying empire - or will it be the moment when, given the best chance in years the followers of open software and standards turn and flee? You decide. Game on."

Dave Hyatt, who writes a blog about his development on Apple's Safari, has an amusing anecdote about developing CSS2 support in Safari, and how IE's piss-poor support of standards forced him to remove it in Safari.

From the blog:

"Sometimes trying to support the standards can be a real pain.

While trying to improve our CSS2 compliance, I recently did a big cleanup of our block layout code, including the code for handling floats. I made what I believed to be a fairly innocuous correction to follow the CSS2 specification. Here's the scenario.

Lets say you have a div that is set to 300 pixels in CSS. You then put a 250 pixel wide float inside that div. Immediately after that you have a 100 pixel wide overflow:hidden div. All sizes have been specified in CSS.

Now here's the pop quiz. What do you think the layout should be? Should the overflow div:
(a) Be on the same line with the float and spill out of the enclosing 300 pixel div
(b) Be placed underneath the float, automatically clearing it because there is insufficient space for
the overflow div next to the float

Before I give an answer, lets see what the CSS specification has to say on this issue. Section 9.5 on floats, fifth paragraph.

'The margin box of a table or an element in the normal flow that establishes a new block formatting context (such as an element with 'overflow' other than 'visible') must not overlap any floats in the same block formatting context as the element itself. If necessary, implementations should clear the said element by placing it below any preceding floats, but may place it adjacent to such floats if there is sufficient space.'

My interpretation of this language is that there must be sufficient space for the table or overflow:hidden element to fit within the containing block. If not, you should clear. That's what I implemented. So in my opinion the correct answer to the question above is (b).

I decided to see what other browsers did. I started with Gecko. Gecko chose (a). Gecko always does (a). It is at least consistent if - in my humble opinion - incorrect. Gecko chooses (a) regardless of whether you pick strict, almost strict or quirks mode.

Next I tried WinIE, and this is the part that blew my mind. Depending on whether the float was an image or a table, the float was left or right aligned, the table specified that it floated via the align attribute or the float CSS property, and on whether or not the normal flow element was declared as a sibling or not of the float, I could get completely different results! The level of inconsistency was astonishing.

I was able to watch WinIE do clipping in one case, to wrap in a second case, to not wrap in a third case, to overwrite content in a fourth case, all by just tweaking the parameters outlined above. It's no wonder Web designers have no idea how to code a page to standards when they have to deal with a layout engine that is so horribly inconsistent and buggy.

Naively I opted to implement (b) and to hope for the best. Unfortunately the bugs immediately started pouring in. finance.yahoo.com was broken for example because it used an old-style align table and relied on it not wrapping underneath the float. Undaunted, I simply added a strict mode/quirks mode check and opted to do (a) in quirks mode and (b) in strict mode.

The bugs kept coming in though. Next was versiontracker.com, a page that is actually in strict mode and relies on an overflow:hidden div to spill out of a containing block rather than wrapping.

So now I really have no choice. This is an example of where the CSS2 standard simply can't be followed because buggy layout engines have set a bad precedent that the rest of us have no choice but to follow.

It's a shame that Gecko does not do the right thing in strict mode at least, but I suppose they had no choice in the matter either."

There will be a Firefox 1.0.1 release. This entry in Asa Dotzler's blog gives a rough timetable. The CVS branch is AVIARY_1_0_1_20050124_BRANCH and several security fixes have already been checked in there in addition to the trunk.

One reason for the delay is that many of these security fixes require coordination from plugin makers, web application makers, and/or other browser makers such as Opera Software and Apple. Only a few of them are simply fixes for security holes in Firefox.

The most recent Firefox nightlies feature a new user-interface to manage the XPInstall whitelist. When a user tries to install software from a site that is not on the whitelist, a thin non-modal yellow bar appears at the top of the content area, informing the user that the install has been blocked (bug 241705). A button allows the user to add the site to the whitelist if they choose. Testers of the beta release of Windows XP Service Pack 2 will probably find the yellow bar familiar: it's almost a carbon copy of the new Internet Explorer Information Bar that appears when an ActiveX control is blocked. If you cannot wait for Firefox 1.0 to try this feature, grab a nightly build from the 0.9 branch but remember that there may be bugs.

"Safari doesn't support XSLT."

Fortunately, Dave Hyatt, one of the lead Safari developers, said in August that it's coming. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004 _08.html/

I'm sure someone else has already posted this link - IDN Spoofing Workaround

Workaround: This can be worked around by disabling IDN support. To do this, you will have to edit compreg.dat, which is located in your Firefox profile directory (Common profile locations).

Open this file with a text editor which understands the line endings in it, such as Wordpad (or your favourite text editor on other platforms), and comment out all lines containing IDN by adding # at the start of the line. For example:

# {4byteshex-2byteshex-2byteshex-2byteshex-6byteshex },@mozilla.org/network/idn-service;1,,nsIDNService ,rel:libnecko.so

Note that you will have to repeat this edit if you install any themes or extensions, as compreg.dat gets regenerated.

Please, your user number shows you've been around long enough to know that you can't type a long string in a comment without it being broken. Learn to make an HTML link. It's really not hard.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=6434 1

Using the magic of the < url: blah.com/ > tags...

It appears that the instruction language for extensions is Javascript. So you can theoreticaly control extension behavior with your browser's javascript settings.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extension_development

A temporary working solution has been posted on the mozillazine forums. In particular this link: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2152 21 has the solution.

No, it was not in the Mozilla suite (aka Seamonkey). In fact, it still isn't. It was first seen in Internet Explorer on Macintosh, then (with a lot of refinement) in Mac OS X 10.0, then copied almost pixel by pixel (with an improvement in behaviour) to Firefox.

Is it a big deal? No. But at least don't refute its history.

Internet Explorer for Mac Release Dates (IE 5 was March 2000)
Mac OS X 10.0 Review, Page 10 "The real fun starts when you select "Customize Toolbar..." from the "View" menu (or shift-click the toolbar widget in the window title bar). The contents of the window are replaced by a palette of toolbar widgets shamelessly reminiscent of Internet Explorer's toolbar customization feature."
Independent Mac OS X 10.1 Release Date Mac OS X was released on March 24th, 2001, with a suggested retail price of $129 and a version number of 10.0.
First Customize Toolbar In Any Mozilla Product A few of the features new to this release include: Customizable toolbar.
Phoenix 0.1 Release Date (September 23rd, 2002; over a year later)

iTunes Music Store on Windows uses WebCore/KHTML, doesn't it?

No.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007450 .html
Photoshop.

David Hyatt is also working on safari. Who was from netscape.

All those things will be addressed in Firefox 1.1, except the thing with your website. Post the URL or the code to Mozillazine's Firefox Bugs or Web Development forum, and we'll tell you what's happening.

You have to install miniT and then change your prefs.js file to get it to work. Which, to me, seems to be amazing overkill when a checkbox in the core application could have negated the need for it.

Sorry, forgot to include link before ;)

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2062 13/

Mod parent up!