The article is misleading. There isn't a "rift" between Mozilla/Opera and the W3C, indeed Mozilla and Opera are very active members of the W3C and were both present and actively participating in the recent Web Applications workshop.
At the moment this group is basically innovating extensions to HTML, for which you need a lot more flexibility than a standards organisation would provide. Once the proposals have reached a mature point we intend to submit these proposals to a standards organisation (whether it is W3C, IETF, ECMA, or another is yet to be determined, but note that the W3C have a policy that says we would not be allowed to say if we were planning on submitting this work to the W3C).
I expect the W3C to start work on the non-backwards-compatible alternatives to WHATWG work, such as creating an XForms/SVG "uberspec" or a new language or something, and when that happens I'm sure Opera and Mozilla will want to be taking part.
All of which is explained on http://www.whatwg.org/, but since when has research had anything to do with journalism, eh?;-)
tcpdump -l -s 0 -w - | tee -a netdata | tcpdump -r - -a -e -q -ttt
In the second one:
tail -F netdata | hexdump -v -C
In the third one:
tail -F netdata | strings -n 13 | less
I actually had that in my.xsession for a while (with varying values for the -n argument of strings) but after seeing all my flatmates' IMAP and POP3 passwords, AIM and IRC conversations, Webmail HTTP traffic, etc, my morals made me stop using it. It's pretty cool though, and you get a very good idea of what is going on on your network.
> IE's CSS support has gotten better in recent releases
What recent releases? WinIE hasn't changed for something like 3 years, and as I understand it Microsoft have said they won't do any more changes to their HTML/DOM/CSS support, ever (even in the IE release that will be in Longhorn). One hopes they are bluffing or will change their mind, but the fact remains that basically, as far as WinIE's rendering engine goes, nothing has changed in years and nothing will have for years to come (no non-security-related changes to be shipped in IE before Longhorn, have said Microsoft officials).
Ok that's it. Gerv, you need to stop talking utter garbage as if you were some kind of authority on the subject. You aren't.
Let's get some facts straight. First of all, CSS (any version) does not require that you style form controls. That is a myth, perpetuated by people like me, who used to want to see that level of control available to authors (As you can tell from the recently released CSS3 UI draft, the CSS working group is in fact moving away from stylable controls altogether).
Secondly, it is quite possible to develop multiple products for different platforms, and in fact, for some platforms it is the best way. In particular, the Mac. The Mac's UI is SO different from other platforms in key, if subtle, ways (menu bar placement, order of menu bar items, the fact that you can have an application running with no windows, etc) that it is significantly EASIER to write an application specifically for that platform rather than try to continually fix XUL to work on the Mac.
Sure, some platforms (Win32, Gnome) are similar enough that you can use one widget set and a few #ifdefs to support both platforms. But that is by no means a requirement.
So please, get some perspective, get your facts right, and stop posting with "@mozilla.org" in your sig as if it meant anything more than "I used to intern at Netscape and they never took away my mail account". The sad fact is you're only on staff@mozilla.org because the rest of staff are too chicken to ask you to leave.
-- Ian Hickson (Editor of Mozilla's XBL spec, Mozilla's XUL spec, the W3C's CSS2.1 spec, three W3C CSS3 modules; Invited Expert to the W3C; QA contact for a dozen or more Bugzilla components; Mozilla contributor for 4+ years; Intern at Netscape for 4 times longer than Gerv; and currently employed by Opera software. But no fancy e-mail address.)
Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".
When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.
The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".
However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!
Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.
Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo!:-D
Not quite as educational as the original though!:-)
Re:why it should be stopped...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Also, look what happened to Netscape after AOL took them over.
What did happen?
Mozilla is still Open Source. In fact, AOL Time Warner will be (as AOL is now) funding a huge Open Source project. If they can fund one, maybe they will start some others -- especially if they see Mozilla as a successful project.
Now if RedHat and AOL Time Warner merge... That would be interesting...
Slashdot Mirror
The article is misleading. There isn't a "rift" between Mozilla/Opera and the W3C, indeed Mozilla and Opera are very active members of the W3C and were both present and actively participating in the recent Web Applications workshop.
;-)
At the moment this group is basically innovating extensions to HTML, for which you need a lot more flexibility than a standards organisation would provide. Once the proposals have reached a mature point we intend to submit these proposals to a standards organisation (whether it is W3C, IETF, ECMA, or another is yet to be determined, but note that the W3C have a policy that says we would not be allowed to say if we were planning on submitting this work to the W3C).
I expect the W3C to start work on the non-backwards-compatible alternatives to WHATWG work, such as creating an XForms/SVG "uberspec" or a new language or something, and when that happens I'm sure Opera and Mozilla will want to be taking part.
All of which is explained on http://www.whatwg.org/, but since when has research had anything to do with journalism, eh?
lol
In one xterm:
In the second one:
In the third one:
I actually had that in my .xsession for a while (with varying values for the -n argument of strings) but after seeing all my flatmates' IMAP and POP3 passwords, AIM and IRC conversations, Webmail HTTP traffic, etc, my morals made me stop using it. It's pretty cool though, and you get a very good idea of what is going on on your network.
> IE's CSS support has gotten better in recent releases
What recent releases? WinIE hasn't changed for something like 3 years, and as I understand it Microsoft have said they won't do any more changes to their HTML/DOM/CSS support, ever (even in the IE release that will be in Longhorn). One hopes they are bluffing or will change their mind, but the fact remains that basically, as far as WinIE's rendering engine goes, nothing has changed in years and nothing will have for years to come (no non-security-related changes to be shipped in IE before Longhorn, have said Microsoft officials).
Ok that's it. Gerv, you need to stop talking utter garbage as if you were some kind of authority on the subject. You aren't.
Let's get some facts straight. First of all, CSS (any version) does not require that you style form controls. That is a myth, perpetuated by people like me, who used to want to see that level of control available to authors (As you can tell from the recently released CSS3 UI draft, the CSS working group is in fact moving away from stylable controls altogether).
Secondly, it is quite possible to develop multiple products for different platforms, and in fact, for some platforms it is the best way. In particular, the Mac. The Mac's UI is SO different from other platforms in key, if subtle, ways (menu bar placement, order of menu bar items, the fact that you can have an application running with no windows, etc) that it is significantly EASIER to write an application specifically for that platform rather than try to continually fix XUL to work on the Mac.
Sure, some platforms (Win32, Gnome) are similar enough that you can use one widget set and a few #ifdefs to support both platforms. But that is by no means a requirement.
So please, get some perspective, get your facts right, and stop posting with "@mozilla.org" in your sig as if it meant anything more than "I used to intern at Netscape and they never took away my mail account". The sad fact is you're only on staff@mozilla.org because the rest of staff are too chicken to ask you to leave.
-- Ian Hickson
(Editor of Mozilla's XBL spec, Mozilla's XUL spec, the W3C's CSS2.1 spec, three W3C CSS3 modules; Invited Expert to the W3C; QA contact for a dozen or more Bugzilla components; Mozilla contributor for 4+ years; Intern at Netscape for 4 times longer than Gerv; and currently employed by Opera software. But no fancy e-mail address.)
Because no-one has written the platform-specific font measuring code on Mac.
actually mozilla doesn't support the blink tag...
I'll bear this in mind when I make the next roadmap image (soon, probably, since we're about to release 0.9.1). Thanks for the idea! :-)
I drew the roadmap.
Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".
When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.
The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".
However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!
Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.
Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D
The roadmap images:
So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.
Hmm. I can optimise that further...
./a.out ; echo $?
:-)
$ echo exit 42 > a.out
$ chmod +x a.out
$
42
$ wc -c a.out
8 a.out
Not quite as educational as the original though!
What did happen?
Mozilla is still Open Source. In fact, AOL Time Warner will be (as AOL is now) funding a huge Open Source project. If they can fund one, maybe they will start some others -- especially if they see Mozilla as a successful project.
Now if RedHat and AOL Time Warner merge... That would be interesting...