MozillaZine

Status Update

Friday January 14th, 2000

David Polberger thought it was worth drawing attention to Jim Roskind's Seamonkey status update on the mozilla.org Status Update page.

Jim talks about dogfood, alpha, beta -- all from an unofficial point-of-view -- and gives a clear look ahead at the next few months of development.

There's a lot to do, but they're making great progress, and I expect M13 (the tree closes for M13 stabilization on the 18th of January) will get a strong reception.


#1 Conspiracy theories

by HoserHead <hoserhead@woot.net>

Friday January 14th, 2000 10:25 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla freezes for m13 on January 18th. Transmeta debuts its new processor on January 19th. Coincidence? I think not.

#2 Re: Conspiracy theories

by odragon <dacmot@xoommail.com>

Friday January 14th, 2000 11:02 PM

Reply to this message

What's Transmeta's new processor? Never heard of such a thing...

#5 Re: Re: Conspiracy theories

by jonde <joona.nuutinen@pp.inet.fi>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 2:44 AM

Reply to this message

Linus Torvald's company unveils it's long awaited Crusoe -processor. It should change everything, or not.

#3 Builds are good!

by odragon <dacmot@xoommail.com>

Friday January 14th, 2000 11:06 PM

Reply to this message

I just downloaded a build from today... I'm thinking of starting to use mozilla for real. The biggest problem for me is profile migration as I use netscape for mail too; emails work fine, but the address book is still stuck. I also filed a bug that prevents me to go on a very important website for me, which was assigned for M12 at first; after being delayed to M13 they just pushed it back to M14! These kind of things prevent me from using Mozilla on a daily basis.

#4 Re: Builds are good!

by Beafsteak <christian.mattar@fh-aachen.de>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 2:13 AM

Reply to this message

What's the bug number? I'll try to make a testcase, so it can get fixed sooner.

#22 The Evil Bug of Mozilla

by odragon <dacmot@xoommail.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 11:08 PM

Reply to this message

my evil bug of mozilla is this one <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16003> ever since M3, I've never been able to log in with Mozilla. Unfortunatly I've only reported the bug in the M11 period, I was a bit affraid by bugzilla at the time.

#26 This *might* have just been fixed

by mozineAdmin

Sunday January 16th, 2000 5:40 AM

Reply to this message

Gagan just checked in a fix for 17293, 17244, and 20814 and his description says "all because some servers wouldn't understand lowercase HTTP headers. We now send HTTP headers in compatible case as 4.*."

He mentioned something very similar in your bug report. Maybe this fix corrected your problem as well.

#27 The Evil Bug of Mozilla

by odragon <dacmot@xoommail.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 10:04 AM

Reply to this message

do you know which build it's in? ... I can't wait to try it!

#29 If there's a build today, try it. (n/t)

by mozineAdmin

Sunday January 16th, 2000 12:06 PM

Reply to this message

#35 nope :o(

by odragon <dacmot@xoommail.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 6:31 PM

Reply to this message

No fix, but I filed another bug though... and a dogfood one (it was quite obvious, I guess I was just lucky to file it first)

#10 Re: Builds are good!

by sspitzer <sspitzer@mozilla.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 10:56 AM

Reply to this message

yes, we still have to get address book migration working.

We are working on it.

see bug <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10837> and the bugs that depend on it.

#6 Encryption

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 9:34 AM

Reply to this message

I was just wondering, with the onset of the new encryption laws, what is the voice over at the mozilla complex. Are they going to insert it. What build are we talking about.. or are we talking about 5.1

#7 Re: Encryption

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

They can't put encryption in Mozilla because the laws still prevent open sourcing the crypto stuff, which would be required if Mozilla is to handle it.

The only way around this is when Netscape, or whoever wants to make a browser, brands their version of Mozilla and start adding stuff to it, including the stuff that cannot be open sourced (encryption, plug-ins, etc)

<:3)~~

#8 Are you absolutely sure?

by FrodoB

Saturday January 15th, 2000 10:01 AM

Reply to this message

The way the new announcement sounds, open source crypto must be sent to some body for review to make sure it's not compromising national secrets or anything but beyond that is perfectly fine.

At least, that's the way I read it (from the official announcement at <http://www.doc.gov> and the discussion of it at <http://www.cdt.org>). Of course, IANAL.

#9 What is IANAL?

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 10:33 AM

Reply to this message

I think maybe MozillaZine should automatically add a n/t to the end of messages that contain no text, possibly in a different colour. It should be separate from the subject of the message so it will not be included in replies to the message. I realize this message may be "off-topic" but is it not better than a "n/t"? :)

#12 I Am Not A Lawyer (n/t)

by emilio

Saturday January 15th, 2000 12:50 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#11 I dunno

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

I should do more reading honestly, you may be right.

<:3)~~

#16 For open source code, only the URL is needed.

by thunderruler

Saturday January 15th, 2000 3:21 PM

Reply to this message

This seems very liberal to me, compared to the previous status quo. It looks like open source crypto code can finally be open -- perfect for mozilla.

--quote-- Global Exports of Unrestricted Encryption Source Code

Encryption source code which is available to the public and which is not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed with the source code may be exported under a license exception without a technical review. The exporter must submit to the Bureau of Export Administration a copy of the source code, or a written notification of its Internet location, by the time of export. Foreign products made with the unrestricted source code do not require review and classification by the U.S. Government for reexport. This license exception should apply to exports of most "open source" software. --quote--

#13 Mac IE5.5

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 1:28 PM

Reply to this message

This is what was just appeared on the webstandards mailling list:

> Aaron L. Patterson [mailto:<pattersa@whittier.edu>] wrote: > >By the way, does anyone know if the Tasman engine is what's being used in > >IE5.5 as well? Or are the Mac and Windows teams working independently on > >developing new rendering engines? > > The Tasman engine is Macintosh only. Mac IE had made significant > improvements to, but never replaced, the engine they started with in Mac > IE3.0 - Win32 IE did, in IE4.0, by replacing the previous engine with the > Trident core. > > -Chris > > ------- > The Web Standards Project > <http://www.webstandards.org> > To unsubscribe mailto:<standards-off@mercury.projectcool.com> OR > Send a blank email to: <standards-off@mercury.projectcool.com> > Hosting donated by Project Cool, Inc. <http://www.projectcool.com> >

Sounds like Moz is going to have some competition on the Mac. Maybe this will motivate Moz developers to make the XUL capable of have a more "mac like" UI? What's MozillaZine members take on this?

Take a look at this: <http://www.microsoft.com/…e/ie5features2.htm#tasman>

Basic

#14 Mac IE5.5

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 1:31 PM

Reply to this message

This is what was just appeared on the webstandards mailling list:

> Aaron L. Patterson [mailto:<pattersa@whittier.edu>] wrote: > >By the way, does anyone know if the Tasman engine is what's being used in > >IE5.5 as well? Or are the Mac and Windows teams working independently on > >developing new rendering engines? > > The Tasman engine is Macintosh only. Mac IE had made significant > improvements to, but never replaced, the engine they started with in Mac > IE3.0 - Win32 IE did, in IE4.0, by replacing the previous engine with the > Trident core. > > -Chris > > ------- > The Web Standards Project > <http://www.webstandards.org> > To unsubscribe mailto:<standards-off@mercury.projectcool.com> OR > Send a blank email to: <standards-off@mercury.projectcool.com> > Hosting donated by Project Cool, Inc. <http://www.projectcool.com> >

Sounds like Moz is going to have some competition on the Mac. Maybe this will motivate Moz developers to make the XUL capable of have a more "mac like" UI? What's MozillaZine members take on this?

Take a look at this: <http://www.microsoft.com/…e/ie5features2.htm#tasman>

Basic

#15 Re: "Take a look at this"

by mozineAdmin

Saturday January 15th, 2000 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has handled the boxacidtest correctly for months. Only recently has a small regression appeared that broke the test, but Rick Gessner already has a fix checked into his tree that solves the problem, and I assume that will make it into the daily builds soon.

#17 Re: Re: "Take a look at this"

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like my post was messed up, here it is again:

> Aaron L. Patterson [mailto:<pattersa@whittier.edu>] wrote: > >By the way, does anyone know if the Tasman engine is what's being used in > >IE5.5 as well? Or are the Mac and Windows teams working independently on > >developing new rendering engines? > The Tasman engine is Macintosh only. Mac IE had made significant > improvements to, but never replaced, the engine they started with in Mac > IE3.0 - Win32 IE did, in IE4.0, by replacing the previous engine with the > Trident core. > > -Chris

I know that Mozilla will be able to handle the boxacidtest. But if IE 5.5 for the Mac is going to standard compliant as well, Mozilla is going to have quite a challenge convincing Mac users to use Mozilla (not that Mac users like the way Mozilla looks like right now). Will there be more effort to get XUL to be able to imitate a more Mac like interface?

#18 Three simple letters: XBL

by FrodoB

Saturday January 15th, 2000 3:39 PM

Reply to this message

David Hyatt's new eXtensible Bindings Language goes a long way toward making this a reality. It allows styling of at least the scrollbars in an easy fashion (meaning Pete Collins or someone like him can make a scrollbar to emulate basically any system imaginable). We can only hope the rest of the widgets follow suit.

#21 Re: Three simple letters: XBL

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 10:54 PM

Reply to this message

I like those strange scrollbars. They are more appealing to me than the plain scrollbars. Are they the same on all platforms?

#24 Re: Re: Three simple letters: XBL

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 12:00 AM

Reply to this message

Except for some quirks with the font sizes that I've seen, Mozilla as you see on your computer is identical to Mozilla on Windoze, Mac, Linux, etc. So yes it is the same at the present, although people have expressed that Mozilla should be more tailored to each platform.

<:3)~~

#34 Re: Three simple letters: XBL

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 6:29 PM

Reply to this message

So guess it's Hyatt to the rescue! ;-)

But if I'm not mistaken, only part of XBL will be implemented in 5.0 right?

Basic (LWP)

#40 Re: Re: Three simple letters: XBL

by Tekhir

Monday January 17th, 2000 12:00 PM

Reply to this message

Correct, they're going to try to fit it all in, but Hyatt's draft does have a few parts which are not required for 5.

#41 Re: Re: Three simple letters: XBL

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Monday January 17th, 2000 1:37 PM

Reply to this message

Someone bought this up on IRC before, but can we clone Hyatt a couple-fold to accelerate work on Mozilla? PLEASE?!

:)

<:3)~~

#19 Re: Mac IE5.5

by jwb

Saturday January 15th, 2000 10:24 PM

Reply to this message

If a standards compliant browser becomes popular on Mac, I will raise up thanks thrice daily. I don't really give a damn if people use Mozilla or not, as long as I can get back to writing content instead of wasting away in the platform testing lab.

-jwb

#20 Let's All Be Paranoid

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday January 15th, 2000 10:45 PM

Reply to this message

I wonder if Netscape realizes Microsoft is probably going to release a standards-compliant browser for Windows as well. I suppose that will be IE 6, and it will probably be strategically released just as Netscape 5 is released. What if they planned to release a Linux version too? If this is the case then <warning>Netscape will have to rely on actual features instead of just making a standards-compliant browser.</warning>

#23 Not likely, at best.

by FrodoB

Saturday January 15th, 2000 11:59 PM

Reply to this message

A snowball's chance in hell, at worst.

Referring to a Linux version, I mean. Microsoft can NEVER support Linux; it means that they are directly supporting their competitor (Microsoft and Apple aren't direct competitors because they work on different hardware). To do so would mean that people would suddenly find Windows to be optional: who would stick with a crash-prone operating system (thus giving money to MS) when they could switch to a free, relatively crash-free operating system with a perfectly wonderful free browser?

Surely you can see that Microsoft wouldn't do that. The bottom line is the almighty ruler.

Beyond that, I don't doubt that IE will one day be standards-compliant. Do I think it'll happen before Moz ships? No. Not while MS can still steer the Web towards only running on Windows (Do I think MS cares about the Mac? Nope. They make a browser for Apple because they still make several hundred million dollars on Office [nothing else] on Mac.).

Maybe MS will prove me wrong. But they haven't done it in the past. I have no reason to think the future will differ from the general trends: embrace, extend, and eradicate.

#30 IE 5.5 for Win32 hasn't been released yet

by brobinson

Sunday January 16th, 2000 1:29 PM

Reply to this message

They're still working on IE 5.5. 5.5 doesn't have a fully standards compliant renderer and I doubt they'll release IE6 in time to compete with the final release of Mozilla 5. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 5.1, 5.5, 6.0, or whatever will be the version of Mozilla after 5.0.

#25 Re: Mac IE5.5

by arielb

Sunday January 16th, 2000 12:33 AM

Reply to this message

it will be quite ironic if pages that look good on IE for the mac will look good on mozilla for any platform (windows and mac) but suck on IE for windows.

#33 Re: Re: Mac IE5.5

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 6:21 PM

Reply to this message

Yes it would, but that doesn't help Mozilla on the Mac front though.

#28 XSL

by tvinci

Sunday January 16th, 2000 11:54 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't seen any info on XSL or XQL for mozilla. Is this not included? It's true that XML can be styled with CSS, but XSL and XQL are an important do more than just style XML. Also will it let XML be defined by Schemas? Wish list: I would like it if the proxies were fully implemented by in preferences.

#31 Re: XSL

by WillyWonka

Sunday January 16th, 2000 3:14 PM

Reply to this message

Let me start off by saying that I don't know much about XSL and I've never heard of XQL. I have no idea on what they are used for, other than one of the programmers at my work wanted to use it in mozilla.

From what I understand XSL isn't a complete standard (I could be wrong - when MS implemented it, it was still a working draft). XSLT is a finalized standard and someone is apparently working on it.

CSS is used all over the place in XUL... I've never had a problem with it. Now XUL on the other hand... :)

#36 Re: Re: XSL

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 6:32 PM

Reply to this message

XQL something MS came up with and submitted it to the W3C. It is modeled after SQL I think.

Basic

#44 Re: Re: Re: XSL

by tvinci

Tuesday January 18th, 2000 8:28 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know if Microsoft came up with it but it is being standardized. They did come up with the Schema notation. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft but atleast they are trying to standardize. It is derived from SQL and implemented as another part of XSL. It lets you add loops instead of implementing a script to XSL.

#32 Re: XSL

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 4:12 PM

Reply to this message

Whoever created all of those standards should be shot. It should not be so complex.

#38 No shooting required...

by leafdigital

Monday January 17th, 2000 6:42 AM

Reply to this message

a better solution would be to come up with XAL (eXtended Acronym Language), which we can use to more clearly specify any future X?? standards...

(BTW, for the last five years no platform has been limited to 3-character file extensions, so why are these standard names all 3 letters? ;)

--sam

#39 Maybe 3 is some kind of magical number? (n/t)

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Monday January 17th, 2000 9:55 AM

Reply to this message

mooo

<:3)~~

#37 Re: XSL

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday January 16th, 2000 6:37 PM

Reply to this message

I thought proxy is fully implemented in the preference. Are you see this bug: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23712> ?

Basic

#43 Re: Re: XSL

by tvinci

Tuesday January 18th, 2000 8:20 AM

Reply to this message

I do see that bug. The problem is not that they don't show but that they don't take effect. I still have to go and edit prefs.js. I need to delete a line that says "no" for proxy when i also see the proxies are set in prefs.js. I'm on a Windows NT machine using last week's build.

#42 Re: XSL/XQL

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday January 17th, 2000 2:22 PM

Reply to this message

search bugzilla <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/>

for XSL to find out more about XSL this newsgroup:

<news://news.mozilla.org/n…blic.mozilla.layout.xslt/>

has a little more info on what is going on.

XQL is not a standard (yet), despite MS website making it to look like one:

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/w3c_docs.asp>

What exist so far is MS's proposal:

<http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp/xql.html>

<http://www.w3.org/TandS/Q…8/pp/query-transform.html>

Other links:

<http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp.html>

<http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-ql/>

public mailling list archive:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ql/>

it's as good as dead though.

The site for the latest XQL info! (too bad it's for members only):

<http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Query>

Person in charge:

<http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity.html#query-wg>