Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 0.9.7 Released!
Chezypewf writes: "The newest release from the Mozilla Dev team is out. This milestone features basic S/MIME support, favicon support and the Document Inspector, a tool to inspect and edit the live DOM of any web document or XUL application. You can grab it here: http://www.mozilla.org/releases "
--Asa
Give it time, friend.
mozilla.org provies binaries for linux, mac (9 and X) and windows. Other builds (the dozen or so other platforms you're used to seeing at ftp.mozilla.org) are contributed by "platform champions" who take the time to make binaries so that you don't have to.
It's late in the week, christmas and the new year right around the corner. Give folks a little time (usually only a matter of days) to make those builds and send them in to mozilla.org.
Or you could do one better and make a build and contribute it to mozilla.org sooner. See Building a Mozilla distro for tips.
--Asa
> KARMA WHORE!
/. readers).
Um, that's my text. I'm the co-author of the release notes and the originator of the what's new section. I would think that I'm allowed to post that here and save a bit of load on our releases page (not to mention the added convenience for
--Asa
I know, it's beena round, but I'm happy to have this feature:
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.7/#new
Mozilla has a new advanced preference panel for fine-grained JavaScript control. For instance, you can disallow pop up and pop-under windows without turning off JavaScript altogether.
I'd still like to have site-by-site preferences wihtout having to edit the prefs.js file, but, what can you do? (i know... i know... write the damn code yourself...)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Copy the files from your "plugins" subdirectory for Netscape to the "plugins" subdirectory for Mozilla. They will work. I've been running Quicktime (under Windows) and Flash with no problems.
Well, I did have one problem ... where I forgot to copy the Quicktime 5 plugin over the Quicktime 4 plugin, and it would crash when the page was unloaded. That was fixed by getting the plugin version to match the DLLs it was linked against. Doh!
I bet they're releasing the software during the Pacific Ocean timezone to avoid the slashdot effect, cowards).
;-)
I'm sure you said that with a wink, but in case not I'll tell you why we release software late in the evening on Fridays. It's because we bust our butts all week trying to get it wrapped up before the weekend. If we work hard and luck is with us we get it out late in the day Friday. If we run into unexpected problems then it's sometime the following week. Fortune smiled on us this milestone cycle and I think we've got something really good to offer (and on time too
--Asa
Can you guess which one stops pop-ups?
Would a usability expert know what half these prefs mean?
Good job on the prefs, Moz-team, but please, hire Jakob Nielsen before 1.0 ships.
I am a mozilla developer, and I use both Netscape 6 and Mozilla. Most of the time, though, I use Netscape for browsing because there is a stability factor in the fact that I am not constantly changing it, editing the source, downloading new nightlies, etc. I have 4 versions of Mozilla on my disk usually at once, along with Netscape 6:
1) Source tree for hacking
2) Binary tree for hacking the chrome
3) Binary tree of a recent nightly to keep track of feature progress
4) Latest milestone release
I use Netscape 6 for browsing because I am not constantly editing, hacking, crashing, replacing, or deleting it. I started doing this last year when downloading a new version of Mozilla might mean that your profile doesn't work anymore.
I imagine for people who don't work on the Mozilla project and don't do what I do, it might be better just to get Mozilla and forget Netscape altogether.
There are some advantages to getting Netscape 6 instead though. It has better plugin support from companies such as Macromedia, integrated AIM, has been more thoroughly tested (as it comes from a milestone branch), has spell-checker, is made to be easier to use than Mozilla, has a better help system, is more polished and attractive, and should generally be more stable and functional - although this is not always the case.
Some disadvantages of Netscape 6 are that it is a much larger download, more bloated, always a couple months behind Mozilla in terms of features, doesn't have IRC Chat (though this may change in the future), has a somewhat quirky installation server (though this should change too), has a private bug database, and comes with a lot of bundled programs which people might not want.
Therefore, it all depends on your preferences which program you use. If you are an advanced user, then Mozilla might be all you need. For the average user, though, Netscape 6 would be what I would recommend. I might also recommend always having up-to-date copies of both programs, and using the one you like the best. Remember, as Mozilla has few users compared to Netscape, the web might not be always written with Mozilla in mind. Therefore, there might be sites that - for instance - sniff for Netscape 6 but not for Mozilla, or plugins that only work on Netscape 6.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
Roadmap information:
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
On the Mozilla roadmap, it shows Mozilla 1.0 following the same start, freeze, release timeline as the rest of the builds. I personally feel it should be started, frozen for twice as long as usual with drivers@mozilla.org being the only ones who can approve changes, then submitted to longer-than-normal testing period.
I would also like to see better documentation, and improved features. I think this release stands for Mozilla, and it should be something Mozilla.org should be proud of. We shouldn't rush into it. I would be perfectly happy if it wasn't released until the end of summer, 2002.
What do you want to see in Mozilla 1.0? Do you agree it should follow an extended schedule compared to most milestones? What features would you like to see improved or added?
You can also talk on newsgroups like netscape.public.mozilla.general
Let's make Mozilla 1.0 fantastic!
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
steven-ehrbar@home.com said:
See the first line on the release page? It says: "We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
netdemonz AT yahoo DOT com said:
That article is old and out of date. Mozilla milestones are meant to be stable releases that can be used as a personal browser.
It is not old and out of date. Mozilla binaries are provided for testing purposes.
--Asa
o . . _.-_ .,,,' ._-_ ^^; .,}
o __.'..o."-.
o . . .
o. .
o _-\" . `""
o.
kazaa.com has lame browser sniffing:
//redirect for people with a less than
//version 4 browser
var NS4 = (document.layers);
var IE4 = (document.all);
var ver4 = (NS4 || IE4);
if(!ver4)
location.href= "notsupported.htm";
and hotmail.com works just fine for me on mac, windows and linux mozilla 0.9.7 builds.
--Asa
Honestly, I want the core frozen absolutely solid. Then declare 1.0. While I love all the features that have been put in to the UI, what really needs to happen for 1.0 in my opinion is to stabilize that API so people can start coding around the platform.
The original vision is still critical, and I want to see more projects like the fantastic pubmed. These things are going to be what really kicks mozilla in to high gear. I really believe that third party stuff like this will make mozilla worth having.
1.0 is all about stability. The browser itself is certainly stable enough to go 1.0. You can add the UI enhancements for 1.1, but make the core solid so people have the platform. Then we'll start to get the plugins that we so desperately need too.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Hi there. I designed the interface for Mozillas Javascript prefs back in September, and Doron Rosenberg has spent the past couple of months implementing it.
Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.
None of them do. Thats why there isnt a checkbox labelled do pop-ups. Blocking pop-ups in toto would be pretty useless, because it would stop a large chunk of the Web from working properly.
Think about it. <a href="http://foo.bar/" target="_new">foo</a> is a pop-up, and none of these prefs prevent that from working, because then the link would break completely nothing at all would happen when you clicked on it. <a onclick="javascript:window.open(whatever)">foo& lt;/a> is a pop-up, and none of these checkboxes prevent that from working either, for the same reason. (In both cases it would be nice if you could get the link to open in the same window rather than opening in a new window, but we dont have the back end to allow that yet.)
What one of these checkboxes does let you do is stop windows from opening by themselves based on a timer, or when you navigate to or from a page. Thats the behavior that annoys people the most, since the new window is usually of no interest to them whatsoever. And whats the label for this checkbox? (Drum roll please ) Open windows by themselves.
If you have a better idea of what to label that checkbox, Id be glad to read it theres been a lot of suggestions so far, but theyve all been either too wordy, too obscure, or (as in your case) just plain wrong.
Hah. I wrote to Jakob Nielsen a year or so ago, asking if he was interested, and he didnt bother replying. I guess whining about sucky Web sites (or sucky mobile phones) is like shooting fish in a barrel, compared to coming up with Javascript prefs your mother would understand.
-- mpt
Current stats: 2 successful Slashdot submissions, 2 Slashdot comments.
Except for downloading attachments. This is a big one IMO since it appears to be a genuine cookie handling bug and not some quirk of hotmail.
Bug 105917. Target fix release, 0.9.9
I've been using nightly builds and home cvs builds of Mozilla on Linux for some time now. It's support for CSS and the W3C box model leads a great deal of people into believing that Mozilla has many bugs because IE5/6 renders there pages fine. They don't realise it's IE5/6 rendering it wrong because their code doesn't do what they mean it to do...
If there is one thing I'd like to see improved in the next release of IE it's CSS selector support. CSS Selectors level 3 is basically finished, Mozilla supports most level 2 selectors, and yet IE6 trails with very limited support. Yes, you can select an element that is within another element (descendant selectors) but IE6 lacks support for a huge array of other selectors such as child, sibling and selectors based on attribute value(s).
This selectors point may seem very trivial to web authors used to writing for IE because they merely give an element a class and write a new rule for it. But that bloats the HTML/XML significantly, and can give the programmer a headache, not forgetting the problems of handling inheritance propeties.
With CSS2 selectors, I can say, td[class ~= "body"] > p:first-child { font-weight: bolder; } and have the first paragraph child of a table cell who's class attribute contains a value "body" go bolder. I can't do that in IE6 as effectively.
C'mon Microsoft, you helped create the selectors standard, now let's see you implement it!
Create the favicon, but please also put the in your pages so that eventually browsers will stop searching for favicon.ico. Microsoft created this mess and hopefully it can be fixed. Also, by using the method, you can have different icons on different parts of your site. Unfortunately, "shortcut icon" (also started by Microsoft as a response to complaints about logs) is not proper use of the link tag. It is saying that this is both a shortcut and an icon.
6
Evangalism bug for the method:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11029
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
It *seems* that when I "view source", the browser hits the server to download another copy. I don't WANT *another* copy - I want to the see the source of what is being rendered in the browser. With many web-based apps, doing another request (especially without resending the proper POST info, etc) will give back different results.
The same behaviour was a huge problem for printing in Netscape. Rather than print what was in the browser's memory and on the screen, netscape would do a GET request on the URL. If it didn't come back with the right results - oh well! Too bad...
Why on earth can't we simply see what's in the browser's memory already? It seems this is the EASY thing to do and Netscape (and now Mozilla) are unnecessarily complicating the matter.
creation science book