It looks like this name change (mainly to satisfy complaints from the Firebird DB guys) will be the last one.
The name is being filed as a trademark and is apparently pretty unique. I was at first leery of another name change, but this should hopefully sort things out once and for all. Also the new fiery-fox-on-globe logo is really cool and firefoxes (aka red pandas) are just soooo cute.
BTW, the long delay in the new 0.8 release -- which adds a MSWindows installer, a new default theme for MacOS X and improved filetype, XPI and download management and other stuff -- is explained by the time taken to verify that the new name was unique and to file the trademark.
No..no! Firefox(TM) did not used to be Firebird (at least not directly)!
It is canonically tbfkaMFtwgtbkaM(B)twfkaM(T)FiUAs&ctwfkfafhaFBbotFD BpctwfkaFbPTIttstwfkaP
--
the browser formerly known as Mozilla Firebird that was going to be known as Mozilla (Browser) that was formerly known as Mozilla(TM) Firebird in UA strings &c that was formerly known for a few hours as Firebird Browser, because of the FirebirdDB peeps complaining, that was formerly known as Firebird, because Phoenix Technologies Inc. threatened to sue, that was formerly known as Phoenix.
As someone who has loved the browser since 0.1, they can call it DogCrap(TM) for all I care (and I'm sure most other users agree).
Seriously though, I really think the new Firefox name is very clear, strong, easy-to-say, unique and the logo is really cool as well as red pandas being sooo cute. I can also see that it was probably a good idea to get a totally unique short strong brand name before starting the pre-1.0 marketing campaign and definitely before realeasing 1.0.
Try the FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory -- I cannot currently get the (Python-based) SE on there to work ATM, but when it does, you should be able to search for "General Public License".
I hope that the EU really do something about M$, and they well may do, as, theoretically, they have a lot of power. However the EU is also not well known for actually getting things done and they also love M$ software -- just look at their site were many of their documents are exclusively in M$ Word or Powerpoint (despite it being illegal to read these formats).
I've been trying to find info on the case on the EU w3site which is terribly disorganised -- worst site(s) I've ever seen. When I search for M$ on the EU site using Google all I seem to get is references to M$ Word or Powerpoint documents or things saying that you must be using MSIE, MS Word &c to use the EU site.
The main EU sites' search function is totally broken and the site of the Consumer Protection Directorate and Unfair Contract Terms law site pester you to register & seem to require MSIE.
However, I did find something about the case, which does not say much, or give any details of what law they are been prsecuted under.
Well my initial thought when I saw the/. headline was: it may not be environmentally-friendly (but it if you watned that you'd go with Transmeta (Linus's old employer) CPU's), but it will go as fast as two jags.
BTW, the town were the punch-up incident happened (that the BBC article calls a "tourist resort") is just round the corner from me, and is not the kind of place that it is unheard of for punch-ups to happen in. It has been voted worst town in Britain several times in a row. Also, my mates who live there call the town, "the gateway to hell".
Also, did anyone hear the Ogg Vorbis recording of the Linux Expo 2003 discussion (that came with the Linux Format DVD)? -- the quality was crap but I heard them taking the piss out of 2jags.
If you'd read the entire comment you would have seen that I didn't suggest that.
Although I do disagree with the great-grandparent, much of my ranting (grandparent) post including my comment about "a ludicrous point of view to hold" was aimed at the posts in general (more than yours).
I decided to vent my frustration on the simplistic M$-is-evil-kill-the-bastards mentality on your post, because it was modded high and actually contained valid (but not, IMO, necessarily true) arguments (that could therefore be refuted). I am sorry I ranted at your post.
In reply to the parent:
you're not going to see any great advances in WWW specifications
The specifications are advancing very well indeed (as are some implementations (i.e.: user agents) following closely behind). If you meant that authors will not use the new features, many of the more knowledgeable authors will and already do (see my "This has already happened.." comment in the grandparent).
If you are right that MSIE is going to stagnate (even more than it already has) then even more authors are going to use features of HTML (and now XHTML (which IE doesnt really support at all)) that IE does not support, and more and more users are going to move to a better UA to get these features.
Which if you'd read the entire comment you would have seen that I said
I thought the whole point of your post was that you were arguing that we should consider supporting one "evil" (or immoral anti-competitive practice) against another. I fundamentally believe it is wrong to consider such a course of action and believe in ther sentiments expressed by these oft-cited prverbs and quotations:
"If one fights evil with evil what is it that one is fighting?" -- cannot find source
"Often the fear of one evil leads us into a worse" -- Nicolas Boileau, L'Art Poetique (1674)
"Better the evil you know than the evil you don't" -- cannot find source
"not rendering evil for evil..." -- Peter, Bible
accept that the best way to get non-IE browsers to dominate the market
I really do not see this as being an important goal for the W3 community (certainly not in the long term and not IMO even in the short term).
Sorry. I was not clear and typing very quickly -- I meant illegal as in "not legal", "against what the law says", "misinterpreting the law" (as in the USPTO should not have granted this) as opposed to saying that Eolas, themselves are in direct violation of the law -- I was not implying that what they had done can nessecarily get them pulled up before a court (even thought it is immoral).
Although for all I know (IANAL & IANAUSC) there might be some rule about losing patents if they are not enforced.
Actually, CSS is even simpler in syntax and the names it uses than XHTML, and anyone can see how a CSS works without having any past knowledge -- "ooh let me see -- a{color:red} -- if I chage that to yellow it will make my links yellow right?"
When the grandparent said "professional" he/she may have meant someone who is good at design (i.e.: an artist to get the colour combinations &c right) for when you want your site to look really nice (as opposed to someone who understands how CSS works).
In fact, the grandparent is wrong, as the W3C will be using a different namespace as they have decided to not make XHTML2 backwards-compatible.
It could be that changing the purpose of an existing tag is bad, but we actually do not want UA's to treat XHTML 2 as HTML or XHTML 1. There may actually be an advantage to the oft-used a tag changing in its purpose -- it will force UA's to follow the stricter XHTML standards (which are not backwards-compatible), and not treat XHTML 2 as HTML (which would not only, in general, be illegal behaviour for UA's, but would cause other more minor backward-compatibilities to not work according to XHTML 2).
Clients are written to deliberately be tolerant of HTML, and to degrade gracefully in the face of malformed, broken, or just-plain-wrong HTML elements
Except that clients can tell whether something is HTML or X(HT)ML, and the specs say that clients must not display XHTML that is not well-formed XML (e.g.: not closing tags) (and I think they may/should not display it if it is invalid (e.g.: non-existant elements)).
As an infrequent user of E2, I would argue that E2ers are usually just defining the terms they use like in my defining-the-word-semantics example in the grandparent post.
But it makes no difference whether the parent is true, because I am not arguing that the href attribute does not change the semantics of the text, but that the existence (or not) of an a tag does not change the semantics.
What is so special about whether some text is the source and/or target (remember a is traditionally used for targets too) of a hyperlink or not?
Hypothetically assuming there is some semantic significance that is added based on whether something is a link under certain special circumstances (which AFAICC there is not), then the existence (or not) of a href attribute can be used in these particular circumsntances (as an anchor does not usually (or possibly ever) change the semantics so a special a tag is not justified).
I cannot find any BBC ads any more. Not only have government bodies been buying ads as well as the BBC, but now the google ad when searching for "Hutton" is:
Hutton PPC ad buys by BBC
An example of Pay Per Click used
to promote non-commercial content
www.neutralize.com
The link is to an "independent Internet marketing firm"'s website talking about the fact that the BBC got Google ads and offering commercial help with pay-per-click advertising to other organisations for non-commercial purposes.
I'm sorry but this is a ludicrous point of view to hold. Are you saying that Eolas be allowed to use the law in a clearly immoral (and illegal) way?
We should all be fighting attempts to patent basic ideas like those of the WWW and calling for reform of the patent system to aviod these sorts of patents (as opposed to real physical inventions that are clearly original and which it has taken the inventor time to create).
it is worth noting that if Eolas go only after Microsoft
Why would they only go after M$? Even if they do don't you think that this is extremely unfair on M$. M$ have as many rights as anyone else. For anti-M$ fanatics out there lets put this another way: by arguing this is OK, you are going as low as M$ by saying that certain companies (M$) should be blocked out of the market by anti-competitive reasons (something that M$ has done). If others do this to M$ they will feel it is OK to do, and you will become just as bad as them.
then this could get the other non-IE browsers a significant leg up in market share
As someone who never uses MSIE, I fail to see what the point in increasing the share of real (non-MSIE) WWW browsers is. I do not use them but why should I support forcing other people to do the same as me (in this case using immoral anti-competitive means). OK, yes people should be made aware of alternatives, but so what if people want to stick with the default that comes with MSW? People should have choice.
I use Mozilla-based browsers and the aim of the Mozilla Project (and I'd imagine the other free-software browsers) is to make the best (most standards-compliant user-friendly &c) WWW browser -- not to get the biggest market share. If Mozilla aimed to do that they would just be making themselves like MSIE. Why should the Mozilla community (developers, users) care if MSIE has more share.
By levelling the playing field a bit more, this would mean that webmasters and designers would not be afraid to move on and leave IE behind.
This has already happened for any webmasters that care about their users. For instance, nearly all sites are compatible with Gecko because webmasters just cannot ignore 5%-35% of their users (depending on which independent survey you believe) -- I think it is probably nearer 5%-10%.
If they go so low as to sue M$ over this totally spurious patent, why would they not sue everyone else they can think of to maximise their profits from their patent (using lawsuits)?
In this case, the best course of action to is come to Microsofts defence
In all cases, the best course of action to follow who you think is in the right.
Sorry I should have checked more links. Actually with some links it does still display the URI of your site in the location bar and some it does not (probably because any sensible webmaster stops people from including their site in a frameset). Of course, you have purposely made a framset though which a user could identify (so it is a different bug if it is one).
IMO frames are a Bad Thing, so if this does cause a problem the answer is to use a browser that does not support frames (e.g.: Amaya) or that can turn them off.
This is not really a security bug anyway (but maybe a taking-credit-for-others-work problem) in that it is the exact opposite of the bug which the article refers to -- you are making other sites look like they are your own.
Doesn't that fact that it is acting as the anchor of the link make it semantically significant?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Semantics basically means meaning. In almost all cases, if the link text in a page was not link text (i.e.: if all the href attributes were removed) it would have the same meaning. Likewise, I could add links for further information in anything I write like I could link to a definition of semantics in this post and it would not change what I was saying.
Also, If the link is citing a source then it should be in a cite element so you cannot arguing that the a elements purpose is for citing.
I am not totally against M$ and actually think there are some thing they have done better In the past. Personally, I do not really care what they do as their software will have to be improved a lot (feature-wise) for me to start using it (except in cases where I am forced).
BTW, if you have a problem with my post (which I typed quickly), please tell me where I have made a mistake instead of attacking me personally.
I tried the website and it does not keep the address bar the same if you go to other sites -- only that site, which is proper URI spoofing and not a security problem.
It also displays the correct URI (even for pages on the same site) in the status bar, all the relevant properties dialogs and when copying the link location.
Not in XHTML 2.0 -- it looks like the anchor (a) element is probably going to be deprecated now one can use href on any element (as I have said it should be for a while, because there is nothing semantically special about link text in comparison to other text).
IMO, as XHTML 2.0 is meant to be non-backwards-compatible, they should use the a element for the functionality of the acronym and abbr elements.
M$ have not added any features to MSIE since about version 2.0 -- in fact I think Bill Gates does not trust anyone else with the source so the only copy was on his personal HDD which he fried therefore to add feautres they would have to try to edit the binaries.
Talking about Bill Gates losing stuff. Has anyone seen recent pictures of him -- he looks really worn and aged, and IMO like he is losing it.
Slashdot Mirror
The name is being filed as a trademark and is apparently pretty unique. I was at first leery of another name change, but this should hopefully sort things out once and for all. Also the new fiery-fox-on-globe logo is really cool and firefoxes (aka red pandas) are just soooo cute.
BTW, the long delay in the new 0.8 release -- which adds a MSWindows installer, a new default theme for MacOS X and improved filetype, XPI and download management and other stuff -- is explained by the time taken to verify that the new name was unique and to file the trademark.
There is more info about the name change in the official FAQ and a lot of unofficial detail on Ben Goodger's blog
No..no! Firefox(TM) did not used to be Firebird (at least not directly)!
It is canonically tbfkaMFtwgtbkaM(B)twfkaM(T)FiUAs&ctwfkfafhaFBbotFD BpctwfkaFbPTIttstwfkaP
--
the browser formerly known as Mozilla Firebird that was going to be known as Mozilla (Browser) that was formerly known as Mozilla(TM) Firebird in UA strings &c that was formerly known for a few hours as Firebird Browser, because of the FirebirdDB peeps complaining, that was formerly known as Firebird, because Phoenix Technologies Inc. threatened to sue, that was formerly known as Phoenix.
As someone who has loved the browser since 0.1, they can call it DogCrap(TM) for all I care (and I'm sure most other users agree).
Seriously though, I really think the new Firefox name is very clear, strong, easy-to-say, unique and the logo is really cool as well as red pandas being sooo cute. I can also see that it was probably a good idea to get a totally unique short strong brand name before starting the pre-1.0 marketing campaign and definitely before realeasing 1.0.
Also try the ODP OSS categories for good sites to mine &c.
Both are of course directories (not SE's) but IMO that is even better.
I've been trying to find info on the case on the EU w3site which is terribly disorganised -- worst site(s) I've ever seen. When I search for M$ on the EU site using Google all I seem to get is references to M$ Word or Powerpoint documents or things saying that you must be using MSIE, MS Word &c to use the EU site.
The main EU sites' search function is totally broken and the site of the Consumer Protection Directorate and Unfair Contract Terms law site pester you to register & seem to require MSIE.
However, I did find something about the case, which does not say much, or give any details of what law they are been prsecuted under.
Seriously though, birds are particularly prone to hitting glass (and buildings) in areas of high light pollution (like New York) -- many scientific studies have been done on this -- see The Fatal Light Awareness Program and the ODP for general light-pollution info.
BTW, the town were the punch-up incident happened (that the BBC article calls a "tourist resort") is just round the corner from me, and is not the kind of place that it is unheard of for punch-ups to happen in. It has been voted worst town in Britain several times in a row. Also, my mates who live there call the town, "the gateway to hell".
Also, did anyone hear the Ogg Vorbis recording of the Linux Expo 2003 discussion (that came with the Linux Format DVD)? -- the quality was crap but I heard them taking the piss out of 2jags.
Although I do disagree with the great-grandparent, much of my ranting (grandparent) post including my comment about "a ludicrous point of view to hold" was aimed at the posts in general (more than yours).
I decided to vent my frustration on the simplistic M$-is-evil-kill-the-bastards mentality on your post, because it was modded high and actually contained valid (but not, IMO, necessarily true) arguments (that could therefore be refuted). I am sorry I ranted at your post.
In reply to the parent:
The specifications are advancing very well indeed (as are some implementations (i.e.: user agents) following closely behind). If you meant that authors will not use the new features, many of the more knowledgeable authors will and already do (see my "This has already happened.." comment in the grandparent).
If you are right that MSIE is going to stagnate (even more than it already has) then even more authors are going to use features of HTML (and now XHTML (which IE doesnt really support at all)) that IE does not support, and more and more users are going to move to a better UA to get these features.
I thought the whole point of your post was that you were arguing that we should consider supporting one "evil" (or immoral anti-competitive practice) against another. I fundamentally believe it is wrong to consider such a course of action and believe in ther sentiments expressed by these oft-cited prverbs and quotations:
I really do not see this as being an important goal for the W3 community (certainly not in the long term and not IMO even in the short term).
Although for all I know (IANAL & IANAUSC) there might be some rule about losing patents if they are not enforced.
When the grandparent said "professional" he/she may have meant someone who is good at design (i.e.: an artist to get the colour combinations &c right) for when you want your site to look really nice (as opposed to someone who understands how CSS works).
It could be that changing the purpose of an existing tag is bad, but we actually do not want UA's to treat XHTML 2 as HTML or XHTML 1. There may actually be an advantage to the oft-used a tag changing in its purpose -- it will force UA's to follow the stricter XHTML standards (which are not backwards-compatible), and not treat XHTML 2 as HTML (which would not only, in general, be illegal behaviour for UA's, but would cause other more minor backward-compatibilities to not work according to XHTML 2).
But it makes no difference whether the parent is true, because I am not arguing that the href attribute does not change the semantics of the text, but that the existence (or not) of an a tag does not change the semantics.
What is so special about whether some text is the source and/or target (remember a is traditionally used for targets too) of a hyperlink or not?
Hypothetically assuming there is some semantic significance that is added based on whether something is a link under certain special circumstances (which AFAICC there is not), then the existence (or not) of a href attribute can be used in these particular circumsntances (as an anchor does not usually (or possibly ever) change the semantics so a special a tag is not justified).
The link is to an "independent Internet marketing firm"'s website talking about the fact that the BBC got Google ads and offering commercial help with pay-per-click advertising to other organisations for non-commercial purposes.
I'm sorry but this is a ludicrous point of view to hold. Are you saying that Eolas be allowed to use the law in a clearly immoral (and illegal) way?
We should all be fighting attempts to patent basic ideas like those of the WWW and calling for reform of the patent system to aviod these sorts of patents (as opposed to real physical inventions that are clearly original and which it has taken the inventor time to create).
Why would they only go after M$? Even if they do don't you think that this is extremely unfair on M$. M$ have as many rights as anyone else. For anti-M$ fanatics out there lets put this another way: by arguing this is OK, you are going as low as M$ by saying that certain companies (M$) should be blocked out of the market by anti-competitive reasons (something that M$ has done). If others do this to M$ they will feel it is OK to do, and you will become just as bad as them.
As someone who never uses MSIE, I fail to see what the point in increasing the share of real (non-MSIE) WWW browsers is. I do not use them but why should I support forcing other people to do the same as me (in this case using immoral anti-competitive means). OK, yes people should be made aware of alternatives, but so what if people want to stick with the default that comes with MSW? People should have choice.
I use Mozilla-based browsers and the aim of the Mozilla Project (and I'd imagine the other free-software browsers) is to make the best (most standards-compliant user-friendly &c) WWW browser -- not to get the biggest market share. If Mozilla aimed to do that they would just be making themselves like MSIE. Why should the Mozilla community (developers, users) care if MSIE has more share.
This has already happened for any webmasters that care about their users. For instance, nearly all sites are compatible with Gecko because webmasters just cannot ignore 5%-35% of their users (depending on which independent survey you believe) -- I think it is probably nearer 5%-10%.If they go so low as to sue M$ over this totally spurious patent, why would they not sue everyone else they can think of to maximise their profits from their patent (using lawsuits)?
In all cases, the best course of action to follow who you think is in the right.
IMO frames are a Bad Thing, so if this does cause a problem the answer is to use a browser that does not support frames (e.g.: Amaya) or that can turn them off.
This is not really a security bug anyway (but maybe a taking-credit-for-others-work problem) in that it is the exact opposite of the bug which the article refers to -- you are making other sites look like they are your own.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Semantics basically means meaning. In almost all cases, if the link text in a page was not link text (i.e.: if all the href attributes were removed) it would have the same meaning. Likewise, I could add links for further information in anything I write like I could link to a definition of semantics in this post and it would not change what I was saying.
Also, If the link is citing a source then it should be in a cite element so you cannot arguing that the a elements purpose is for citing.
Ye, that is a good point. In retrospect, replacing a with something else is probably a bad idea, but what I said about getting rid of it still holds.
Where? AFAICC, Both pseudo-html tags are closed as are all my real HTML tags (except p).
I am not totally against M$ and actually think there are some thing they have done better In the past. Personally, I do not really care what they do as their software will have to be improved a lot (feature-wise) for me to start using it (except in cases where I am forced).
BTW, if you have a problem with my post (which I typed quickly), please tell me where I have made a mistake instead of attacking me personally.
It also displays the correct URI (even for pages on the same site) in the status bar, all the relevant properties dialogs and when copying the link location.
Well, even better, for me I cannot access the site at all as I get a 502 server error.
I have tested my browser (Mozilla Firebird) against all the spoofing bugs I can find and it is not vulnerable to any.
I have had crashes but nearly always because I'm trying to get it to crash and its a nightly build.
IMO, as XHTML 2.0 is meant to be non-backwards-compatible, they should use the a element for the functionality of the acronym and abbr elements.
Talking about Bill Gates losing stuff. Has anyone seen recent pictures of him -- he looks really worn and aged, and IMO like he is losing it.