Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 16 Released: More HTML5 Support
Today Mozilla released the final version of Firefox 16, which includes a number of new tools for developers. "A number of HTML5 code has been 'unprefixed,' which means that Mozilla has decided it has matured enough to run in the browser without causing instability. The newly unshackled HTML5 includes CSS3 Animations, Transforms, Transitions, Image Values, Values and Units, and IndexedDB. Two Web APIs that Mozilla helped to create, Battery API and Vibration API, are also now unprefixed. These changes help keep Firefox competitive, but it also sends a signal to developers that Mozilla thinks these are good enough to begin baking into their sites. It's a strong endorsement of the 'future-Web' tech." Here's the complete change list and the download page.
What information does the CNET article contribute on this matter, exactly? Why not at least link to Google News? Why contribute to the Web becoming a pile of ads and sharing buttons? Why, Slashdot, why?
They're calling it quits? Or did you mean the "latest" version of Firefox?
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Cue the whine brigade complaining that firefox is "Bloated". These are the same people that complain that firefox is behind the curve for not adding new features all the time.
Whatever your complaints, I still find myself coming back to firefox because of the addons. Chrome is getting better and many of the most popular ones are there - But it's still not there. Some addons have reduced functionality because of the more restrictive API, or they're not well developed enough yet for Chrome. The more obscure, but damn useful ones are pretty much firefox only.
I think there's something wrong with this version of Firefox. I just updated, and not a single one of my plugins was disabled because of incompatibility!
Maybe someone should make a "Firefox Nostalgia" plugin. It detects when firefox is updated, and generates a random "The following plugins have been disabled..." alert window.
"A number of HTML5 code has been 'unprefixed,' which means that Mozilla has decided it has matured enough to run in the browser without causing instability." - come on, how dumb is that? If there were a vendor-sanctioned CSS attribute or "HTML5 code" (or whatever, really) that was known to cause "instability" in one of the world's most widely-deployed and -used applications, trolls and/or crackers would make ABUNDANT use of that inherent weakness, prefixed or not.
Now, I don't know for sure how HTML5 "standardization" (if you can stomach calling it that...) actually works, but what I happen to have picked up is this: In reality, that kind of "prefixing" (extending the name of a soon-to-be-"standardized" identifier with a vendor-specific keyword) takes place because the vendor probably still works out implementation details, or isn't 100% sure if he wants to really do whatever the feature/thing is doing right now the way it is doing right now forever. It's some kind of "this is just a draft"-hint, like, for example, "X-"-prefixed HTTP and SMTP header data (used to be - they're abused for other, this-aint-in-the-official-standard-but-we-need-it-anyway-things today, of course). If using any of this causes the browser that implements it to crash or be otherwise unstable (and therefore potentially exploitable), that's a _grave_ bug, and certainly not something that any of the industry heavyweights (well, except for Apple and Microsoft maybe... hehe) would tolerate to occur in the wild for more than a few hours, until an appropriate patch is released.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
The command line feature looks very cool. It'd be even better if that could be controlled from outside Firefox, basically making Firefox scriptable -- for automated Firefox testing, Website testing, taking screenshots, etc.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I'm starting to think they'll never fix this.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660577
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=683284
I know WebSQL got scrubbed from the HTML5 spec a couple years ago, but during that time it got adopted in a usable way by webkit and opera. In the spec or not it's become the defacto standard for anyone doing HTML5 development for mobile devices, especially for use in off-line apps. Not only that, but at this point it's proven and reliable. I have a feeling it's going to be like H.264 vs WebM. The technical gurus will support one over the other due to ideological reasons, meanwhile the rest of us who are being paid to write things that work will continue going on using what works for us and our clients.
Right now WebSQL is supported on basically 99% of the mobile devices we see in our clients' hands. That includes iOS, Android, Blackberry, hell even Kindle and Nook. On the desktop it works on Safari, Chrome, and hell even FireFox with an extension.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The most important part of the summary. Discuss...
It looks like you're going to have to use another browser for your porn^H^H^H^Himages.
It seems that they're working on it, just extremely slowly. If you open all of the bugs that those two depend on, these are the deepest roots. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=742081 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=784591 The latter was being worked with on Sunday, while the former is lagging with activity, last commented on 3 months ago. You should probably expect it to be fixed in about three years.
There is still no HTML5 form support worth mentioning. Even IE10 is better at that now. They've added a bit of support for validators but the rendering still sucks.
Please fix it.
has one browser supporting something ever made it an option for web developpers. As a web developper, the only time I can bake functionality in is if 95% of users can use it. The only exception is IE 5-6-7, those users deserve to be see broken webpages.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
I think it is time for Slashdot to limit all these Firefox "major" release articles. Because the team just be decided to be stupid with their number scheme, it doesn't mean every new number is really newsworthy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But 16 is a power of two! It's a round number release!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
why is it that I can't uninstall a plugin? Once installed, plugins are forever? Like diamonds?
Yes I know you can disabled it, but that's not the same thing.
Firefox 16 will be the first version to support incremental garbage collection. This is a major feature, over a year in the making, that makes Firefox smoother and less laggy. With incremental GC, Firefox responds more quickly to mouse clicks and key presses. Animations and games will also draw more smoothly.
and you'll get the new Ionmonkey engine. Or just switch to the nightly.
Did you bother to read the list of fixed bugs in version 16?
ummm that wouldn't be implemented until at least firefox 18, so it won't be bothering you for another 6 months or so unless you are running on the beta channel - in which case it serves you right, but you'll have the chance to do something about it before it is too late
I've noticed Firefox having more and more problems rendering sites that Safari and Chrome have no trouble with. Version 16 has been especially bad.
Take a look at Panic's Coda site in Firefox 16. Those headers should not look like that; see Safari for proper rendering. If you look at the css for those headers:
#pitch h3 {
font-family: "Chrono Regular", sans-serif;
font-size: 34px;
color: #436fa2;
text-align: center;
background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(#2c5b92 50%, #0a3978 100%);
background-image: linear-gradient(#2c5b92 50%, #0a3978 100%);
}
So Firefox is not respecting the linear gradient as a background image for text. Can someone clarify whether this is part of the spec?
That is obviously a more advanced example, but I'm seeing many sites with layouts that are broken (most often navbars) in Firefox 16.
I think of it as version 4.16, and everything makes sense again.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
You don't have to click your way here. I certainly don't click on every line that pops up in my feed reader.
BTW, congrats on getting a +5 on a subject that's not newsworthy. Nobody will stop by to see your accomplishment. Hang your head having wasted your time on something so uninteresting.
Also you should realize by now, as I'm sure you click every. singe. uninteresting. Firefox. article. you come across, that any amount of bitching about the version numbering or the press coverage there off is ineffective and clearly redundant by now. Your comment is not worth the mod points.
At any rate, adding comments to an article, won't get them off the list any faster. Articles with more comments get more attention ya dunce.
Chrome's built in flash player uses 80% cpu on a quadcore where as IE and Firefox use 30% via adobe's on plugin.
I welcome Firefox 16. I'm sorry I ever left you.
On the upside, pages with background colors will no longer flash white like they do in chrome. YAY.
Chrome is bad.
Point releases with firefox were typically bugfix and security fix releases, with the exception of versions that were X.Y.Z (with Z updates being the bugfixes-- ie 3.6.1).
You cant convert it back to the old version numbering, because it DOESNT make sense that way-- the entire point was "smaller, quicker major versions". That in no way makes them the equivalent of old minor releases.
How about you go use bugzilla instead of looking like an idiot here? Next time link to your bug in bugzilla or GTFO. If you don't have a bug report in bugzilla, you don't have grounds to bitch about Firefox bugs not being fixed.
We don't worry so much about stability... not after using Firefox all these years. We worry about security. Like zero-day exploits that hackers and script kiddies can use to try rip us off, infect us, take over our computers for attacks or spam, or steal our information. Trying to shove every new wizfangled thing-a-ma-jiggie into our browsers has also been frustrating with compatibility on many sites. These are the issues most of us care about.
I hate posts like yours...there is no US there is only YOU. You like the years of IE dominance, where the internet stagnated. It was a living hell for me. Thank goodness the develops of Firefox; Chrome don't think like you, otherwise Microsoft will still have their abusive monopoly, and my life would a lot more dull.
Unfortunately, my firefox 15 just crashed after it neared 2GB in size - after only 6 hours of use on Debian Squeeze.
Leaks still abound. And closing all tabs and windows except one does not free the memory. Any tips on figuring that out or fixing it?
Firefox 16? Nah, I'll wait until they release the Firefox 32. I heard it has better graphics.
When it comes to web browsers, I am quite reactionary (look it up on Wikipedia) - or cautious, as I like to call it. For my part, I am not going to upgrade beyond version 3.5 until there is a plugin that allows me complete control over what animated and other intrusive crap I am willing to allow.
Experience has taught me not to trust content providers at all. Which is why I use AdBlock, NoScript, AniDisable and other plugins - I have too often come across web pages designed by idiots that feel entitled to rape my PC, more or less. Once or twice I have even come across looping Javascripts that steal 100% CPU time. I just don't want that kind of shite.
Upon seeing the article title. I immediately clicked Help -> About, and was subsequently upgraded to Firefox 16.0. No need for a download link SlashDot.
I painfully remember the time, just months ago it seems, where I'd have come here barking about my use of iCab on macintosh, aka the browser that invented adblocking (years before Mozilla just existed).
At the time being, all I am left with is this feeling that either you are on tablets, or you are dead.
And as tablets are all walled gardens for now...
(O Linux, when ô when will you come to tablets?)
Let's get back to my Blackberry Playbook now. At least I still steer outside the duopoly world. And there is one, yes one, adblocking browser there...
Herve S.
Point releases in Firefox did definitely include new functions on par or bigger than current "major" versions do. Firefox 3.5 included multimedia tags, private browsing, several new web technologies (workers, JSON)... Firefox 3.6 included the Personas interface and checking old plugins.
Firefox 16 is not 'mayor' in the same way that 3.0 or 4.0 were. The new numbering schema means that the version number does no longer provide significant information about the project evolution.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I'm still using Firefox 3.6 and I'm very happy about it!
Ah yes, it seems like it was only yesterday we were using FF3.6, they grow up so fast anymore.
Wait, it was only yesterday! Seriously, the version numbers wars get more stupid everyday. Do companies think users are that dumb?
https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2012/10/10/security-vulnerability-in-firefox-16/
Great... How does that even happen?!