MozillaZine

M13 Alpha - What's Next?

Thursday January 27th, 2000

Mozilla.org has declared M13 to be "alpha" which means Mozilla needs your attention and constructive bug reports as it pushes towards beta. Why not check out the latest builds and start using Mozilla more and more throughout your day?

Also, you can join the gathering in #mozillazine every evening. Talk about the latest builds, help clear out duplicate bugs, or just hang and chat. Point your IRC client at irc.mozilla.org, or, better yet, you can use the Chatzilla IRC client enabled in the latest builds (under the Tasks menu). Just start up the client, /attach moznet, and then /join #mozillazine. You'll probably want to change your nick from IRCMonkey to something more appropriate once you get connected. :-) You can also use the Java chat client on our chat page.


#1 Beta Requirements

by sford

Thursday January 27th, 2000 9:23 PM

Reply to this message

There is an effort at gathering a list of what is required for beta mozilla underway now, which I am working on. So voice your opinions

#2 fully functional, not completely bug-free

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

For most users, betas should work fine almost all of the time. Bugs left should not impede functionality for most users with average configurations. Crashes are acceptable occasionally.

Betas should not visibly look any different from the final product. For instance I would hope the pop up ads at Netcenter would be the proper size, that My Netscape needs to work, and that all latest versions of the few major plug-ins (Quicktime, Realplayer) should work fine. Currently Realplayer does not work at all for me. It almost does with Netscape radio but you don't hear anything. This is not acceptable for beta. Multimedia is an important part of the Internet and needs to be functional

In short, betas crash occasionally and may not work perfectly for some more obscure configurations, but most users shouldn't have any problems using the software most of the time.

#9 Plug-ins

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 11:18 PM

Reply to this message

All my plug-ins have been working, including Quicktime, Real Player, Flash ... all except Java.

Ocassionally a weird build would come out and none of these would work.

One thing I've notice that hasn't been working is Mozilla doesn't seem to respond to links in the Flash animations.

<:3)~~

#11 fully functional, not completely bug-free

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 11:30 PM

Reply to this message

Well, Realplayer isn't getting it, at least not by just transferring my plugins folder over. QT works but RealPlayer stuff isn't.

#25 Re: fully functional, not completely bug-free

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 6:52 AM

Reply to this message

Am I the only one who thinks Apple is being dishonest my marketing the Quicktime plugin as free software while it constantly nags people to upgrade to Quicktime Pro?

#41 I wouldn't call it dishonest

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday January 28th, 2000 1:38 PM

Reply to this message

Just an annoying business tactic. I can't think of any specific example but Quicktime isn't the only program that does this.

<:3)~~

#56 Re: I wouldn't call it dishonest

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 10:49 PM

Reply to this message

The only other programs I have seen that do this are all shareware. It is not just an annoying business tactic. It is shareware being marketed as freeware.

When Quicktime asks "why upgrade," it says the reason is looping video and the ability to save videos. The real reason is to get rid of that stupid nag screen.

If there are any Apple employees reading this, please tell me why you do not make your stupid plugin more useful. It should only handle Quicktime files. Why must it ruin PNG files and WAV files too? I used to be able to play WAV files in Web browsers without seeing that stupid "why upgrade" ad. I think Mozilla would be better off with an alternative plugin for Quicktime videos.

#60 But we're not bitter... n/t

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#63 Re: Re: I wouldn't call it dishonest

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 5:33 AM

Reply to this message

Hear Hear, tanyel! I cannot stand QuickTime and it's pathetic whining. No wonder there are so many key generators for the blasted thing.

Anyone out there know of a legal non-Apple, non-whineware clone?

#75 Re: Re: Re: I wouldn't call it dishonest

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 2:52 PM

Reply to this message

That would be a good project for the open source community to consider.

#69 Defititions

by thelem

Saturday January 29th, 2000 10:58 AM

Reply to this message

A few definitions here:

Freeware: Totally free, registering only helps the developer, it has no effect on the software.

Shareware: Fully functional software with a few 'added extras' like a nag screen. It may also be an older version.

Demo/Lite: A version of the software with either restricted features or a time limit.

#59 I would certainly call it bollocks

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 1:55 AM

Reply to this message

They don't do that to Mac users

#70 um..

by BigShu

Saturday January 29th, 2000 11:21 AM

Reply to this message

Yes they do. If you have not purchased the QT Pro upgrade, or a Mac OS upgrade with free QT pro ("a 29.95 value"), the pop-up message still appears.

Regardless, QT is the basis for MPEG-4, so new plug-ins will eventualy surface. Rah.

#3 Basic FTP and drag & drop

by url <urlradio@yahoo.com>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 9:52 PM

Reply to this message

sford, I'll dive in and ask for basic ftp upload/download features, if it isn't there already in Alpha (I haven't had a chance to use M13 yet.) Drag and drop is also something I use *heavily* for bookmarks, etc. and is pretty important to me.

AdamH.

#32 Re: Basic FTP

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday January 28th, 2000 10:27 AM

Reply to this message

I just read earlier in the week that the FTP upload framework is now in the tree. I expect we'll see this functionality coming online soon.

-Asa (posted with mozilla)

#4 A BROWSER!

by pbreit

Thursday January 27th, 2000 10:22 PM

Reply to this message

what is NOT! required for alpha, beta or launch are:

- editor - mail - news

what a waste of precious developer resources on this crap.

what is required: a lean, fast, standards-compliant, stable BROWSER!

forget the garbage and focus on the browser and maybe it'll be finished in our lifetimes!

and ssl, too.

#5 Re: A BROWSER!

by sdm

Thursday January 27th, 2000 10:35 PM

Reply to this message

Even though this is flamebait...

...the editor is used for text input in the browser (the standalone editor is actually a simple shell around that)...mail and news uses the browser to display all messages...editor is used in mail and news to create messages...the browser is used to create all the ui in mail and news and editor.

So the overhead for mail news and editor is actually quite small - you almost get them for free.

#7 Exactly!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 11:14 PM

Reply to this message

Well just to sum it up, News, Mail, and Editor are applications based and built on top of the browser, so there is a lot of overlap in the code (and therefore people working on the code), and removing News/Mail/Editor would not make Mozilla that much smaller.

Besides a lot of people do use News and Mail, such as me. Although I don't use Editor, it is required by News and Mail.

<:3)~~

#17 Mail/News/Editor ARE BUILT ON TOP OF BROWSER!

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Friday January 28th, 2000 3:02 AM

Reply to this message

to quote gerbil...

(heh, i just wanted to put it in a upper-case comment title ;)

#48 Re: Re: A BROWSER!

by lubricated

Friday January 28th, 2000 4:39 PM

Reply to this message

Then why do mail and news suck so bad especially when trying to scroll through more than 20 messages but the browser works fine most of the time.

#12 nope, sorry

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 11:39 PM

Reply to this message

I like, DEMAND, integrated mail/browsing client, especially one that allows multiple POP accounts. Anyway, for me, the browser works pretty much fine in all respects.

#13 Re: A BROWSER!

by Nacheeze

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:43 AM

Reply to this message

Nope!!!! WE don't only need a browser we need a fuilly integrated product. One which contains, mail, news and PIM!!!! Don't forget the PIM!!! This is important. Why don you think a lot of people use MS!!! cuz all the stuff is integrated!!!! ITs all there.

#14 Re: A BROWSER!

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:51 AM

Reply to this message

Hey, I _want_ mail/news. I currently use NN4.7 for my email and newsgroup reading (I'd use Moz, but the f***ing sysadmin at my school won't upgrade to Solaris 7. Grr! No CVS, either. Double grr!). Email I can always handle with RMAIL or VM in emacs, but I really don't like GNUS.

My time spent on the Internet is mostly split equally between the Web and Usenet, with a little email thrown in.

#19 Mozilla Modularized

by Jag

Friday January 28th, 2000 4:22 AM

Reply to this message

I understand that Mozilla has been modularized, making it easier to plugin components (like an encryption module, an Instant Messaging module or your favorite flavour of JVM), to what extend has this been taken? Would it be possible to download just the bare basics (i.e. the browser) and later add/remove components a la IE5?

#39 Re: A BROWSER!

by Ben_Goodger

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:47 PM

Reply to this message

erm.. much of the editor core functionality is required for text widgets in the browser UI anyway...

unless you'd prefer we use native widgets ;)

#49 Re: Re: A BROWSER!

by lubricated

Friday January 28th, 2000 4:43 PM

Reply to this message

native widgets worked alot better than these "new" widgets. What is so wrong with native widgets? Certainly there is crap in the editor that the text widget doesn't use.

#50 Re: Re: Re: A BROWSER!

by FrodoB

Friday January 28th, 2000 4:48 PM

Reply to this message

The thing wrong with native widgets is three-fold.

1) The event systems for them differ significantly between platform (Rod Spears expressed this sentiment).

2) Native widgets are not stylable by CSS, which is required of a CSS-compliant browser (IE 5.0 doesn't use native widgets; they use non-native widgets that are exactly like the native widgets except with CSS styling).

3) According to Mike Pinkerton, without switching to XP widgets, there'd be no Mac or Linux ports supported by Netscape. And if anyone thinks they don't have parity now, imagine if the 20+ developers working on them weren't.

#54 Hello?

by pbreit

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:33 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know if you all have been following the mozilla efforts but there are a TON of people working on non-browser related components. These resources COULD have been utilized to get the browser done and there MAY have remained relevant (i know, diminishing returns of adding more people to software dev project).

secondly, firstly, microsoft DOESN'T bundle mail, news, editor and browser. secondly, ms has virtually unlimited resources.

this is not a question of what you personally like. this is a question of mozilla's very survival. the project absolutely cannot afford to expend its resources on non-critical items.

news flash: you will not be using net news in the real world!

#55 Re: Hello?

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 6:15 PM

Reply to this message

If your definition of "real world" eliminates any digital communication, you won't be using the Web there either!

#61 umm, yes MS does integrate

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 2:02 AM

Reply to this message

It's called Outlook Express and Frontpage Express, or Outlook and Frontpage if you have the full versions. Anyway, it seems to be the opinion of most of us that mail IS a necessary part of the product. Just because you're impatient doesn't mean we should suffer with an inferior product, and with the integration of the mail client in Mozilla, ripping the browser out and using native widgets WOULD be an inferior product.

#58 Unbelievable!

by pbreit

Friday January 28th, 2000 11:26 PM

Reply to this message

the software development industry is unbelievable! you all have the classic sw dev attitude which is precisely the reason why nearly all software development projects are way over budget, very late and super buggy. you have no concept of scope.

there are plenty of good email and news clients on every platform. there are terrific free and low cost authoring tools. and hardly anyone uses net news anymore. why is this so hard to understand? really, i'd like to know. i just don't understand how it ahs come to this.

go through the status updates and bug reports and see how much energy has been spent developing, testing and fixing those buggy components. noone's egtting them "for free". they've very nearly cost mozilla its relevance. that's a very high price to pay.

#64 Re: Unbelievable!

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 7:56 AM

Reply to this message

Unfortunately I tend to agree with the prevailing sentiment behind this post. That is, we want a browser... now!. I suspect people are just impatient and see "mail-bashing" as a good avenue for fume venting.

However as Asa and Ben Goodger have pointed out, these are critical reasons for these components requiring resources.

I see a middle ground though. I think it is time to scope Mozilla for a release date. I think Mozilla needs a "feature freeze". A few days should be spent defining what is finished, what is required for a viable product and what can be formally defined as future enhancements.

I am trying to choose my words carefully here as I don't want to start a flame. I passionately believe in all of Mozilla. However, I understand market forces and market share, neither of which care a damn about noble aspirations.

#65 Re: Unbelievable!

by Cynic

Saturday January 29th, 2000 9:09 AM

Reply to this message

pbreit: Why do you insist on posting flamebait? Have you nothing better to do than incense others? *sigh*

Your argument is we don't need mail and news clients integrated, because we have already got these things on every platform. What you don't seem to understand is the concept of "integration". I don't *want* to start up a new application each time I click on a mailto: link. I don't want to use a separate newsreader when I can access USENET through my mail interface. And FYI, there are hundreds of thousands of messages - maybe even millions of messages - posted to USENET every day, and you have the gall to call it a dead medium? Wake up and smell the coffee.

None of these things have cost Mozilla anything. You want to see cost? If Mozilla goes out *without* this functionality, it will be nothing. Less than nothing, it will be reviled as inferior, because people will compare it to IE, which has a fully integrated suite of tools. *That* is the cost of not having these things in, and that is what I'd call a high price to pay.

#6 encryption

by mzimmerm <mzimmerm@worldchat.com>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 10:58 PM

Reply to this message

For a real test, to be able to switch to it full-time, encryption would be nice. I think people do not mind the occasional crash, but switching to 4.7 whenever encryption is needed is annoying.

#8 Re: encryption

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 11:16 PM

Reply to this message

Well now with the relaxed encryption export laws they can actually put it in Mozilla AND the Netscape-branded release. Before we would have had to wait for the Netscape-branded release to use encryption.

<:3)~~

#29 Re: Re: encryption

by sacolcor

Friday January 28th, 2000 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, I don't think we can do this until RSA's patent expires later this year.

#42 Re: Re: Re: encryption

by mzimmerm <mzimmerm@worldchat.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 1:41 PM

Reply to this message

I guess that's right. Maybe there could a binary-only alpha/beta release with encryption available through the usual "where are you from". I am wondering if there are more people like me, basically able to switch to Mozilla Alpha if there was encryption (actually I'd need 128 bit)

#45 Re: encryption

by sacolcor

Friday January 28th, 2000 3:09 PM

Reply to this message

It isn't the open-source nature of Mozilla that is the problem here; it's the fact that RSA owns the patent for public key encription. Mozilla would have to negotiate a license with them (and probably pay them a royalty) in order to use it in any way, open source or binary.

#10 Speaking of FTP ...

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday January 27th, 2000 11:22 PM

Reply to this message

and I know I should file a bug/enhancement report on this but how is the current FTP setup going to change? I seriously doubt the current setup in Mozilla, with opening and closing the trees, will remain the same because there are major flaws:

There is no mouse-orientated way open a directory in its own window.

It is hard to read across the screen to see which files go with which dates and which file sizes.

Well a proposal I think would work is a two panel FTP, a small left panel will house the directory tree while the right main panel will show all the files in any given directory.

I am not complaining, just curious.

<:3)~~

#15 Mozilla still not fully HTML4 compliant.

by simifilm

Friday January 28th, 2000 2:02 AM

Reply to this message

M13 does not yet show all HTML4 code correctly. Check out the browser test on <http://www.icab.de/test.html> . Until now the only browser I'v seen which renders this test correctly is icab.

simi

#16 BETA: Parity between platforms

by thord

Friday January 28th, 2000 2:15 AM

Reply to this message

Right now, the builds for Windows are better(faster and more stable) than for example Linux, Solaris & Mac. I would hate to see these become "second class" Mozilla-platforms.

My wish for Beta is, as the subject says, that we get platform-parity.

#33 Absolutely Agree: Problems on Linux

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Friday January 28th, 2000 10:57 AM

Reply to this message

Linux is the only platform I use to do any work, and I have been testing out Mozilla on Linux for the the past couple of months. I am becoming concerned about the problems that are cropping up on the Linux builds. According to the bug reports these problems are not present on other platforms. These include some serious rendering bugs that make some of the pages I view frequently completely unreadable. See bug 25227 and 16008 . More disturbing is the trend that most of the Linux bugs I have been watching keep getting pushed back. I doubt that they will even be fixed by Beta, which will result in an unusable Beta for Linux.

#35 NS vs MS Market Share makes Linux most important

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 11:50 AM

Reply to this message

Microsoft has a stanglehold on the Windows browser market. It will be next to impossible to compete againsed them on Windows in the long term. Netscape has lost enough market share already that the battle is pretty much over, IE wins under windows. And do you know what...WHO CARES. Personally, I think Mozilla on (and) Windows is a waste of time.

Mozilla's prime target should be Linux.

Windows is dead in the long term. Microsoft can't compete with Linux, its slow march forward is relentless. Not even Microsoft can compete with millions of developers and companies working on Linux. Linux will continue to add features forever and ever, with no time constraints due to no need for profit. It will run on more and more platforms, palms to mainframes to web tv boxes. It's just a matter of time till it takes over the world ("world domination")...2,3,5,10,20 years...who knows...but it will happen. If Mozilla concentrates on being to Linux what IE is to Windows...when Linux wins, Mozilla wins. Winning is thus guaranteed. Let the rest of the world waste time on developing for the doomed platform that is Windows. If Mozilla and the rest of the world just gave up on windows and worked on Linux...it would be doomed and go away a lot quicker.

#38 Re: NS vs MS Market Share makes Linux most importa

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:33 PM

Reply to this message

Here are a few of my thoughts.

Mozilla is not about winning. It is about building the best internet suite possible and providing it to as many people as want to use it. This means that mozilla on windows matters because people on windows (me) will want it. This means that mozilla on linux matters because people on linux will want it. This means that mozilla on mac matters. This means that mozilla on any available platform matters.

Mozilla needs to be used to be needed. The more people that adopt a standards friendly solution, the more developers will code a standards friendly web for all of our use and enjoyment. To be used by many means it will need to work on as many platforms as possible. I think at last count I found 12 platforms that mozilla (to different degrees) worked on.

Mozilla will be in development for a long time. There will be realeases along the way. There will be moments when one platform is ahead by a little bit and other moments when that platform falls behind but it is important that all platforms are moving forward. They will be like siblings always trying to outdo eachother. This is organic growth and strengthening. This is a good thing.

Mozilla will see the same kind of strengthening across platforms that it sees across it's differnt components. Just as mail-news has been responsible for the discovery of many inefficiencies in other parts of mozilla, so will solaris or mac or some other platform help to root out weakness in design or implementation with mozilla as a whole.

just some thoughts, Asa (posted with mozilla)

#43 I completely agree.

by hubick <chris@hubick.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 1:54 PM

Reply to this message

I completely agree with you on these points, I had purposely slanted my statements towards arguing the topic at hand.

Mozilla doesn't matter to me actually. What matters to me is having a FREE (as in speech [fsf]) browser suite which supports all the major internet standards. I don't care which browser it is, as long as the standards are supported. What also matters to me is having other FREE (as in speech) software, including the operating system. GNU/Linux is thus my primary choice, which also makes Mozilla my primary choice of browser.

Relating to the point you make, until IE supports as many standards as Moz, there is a need and thus want for Moz on Windows. I would rather have Microsoft take the time to actually support standards under IE/Windows so that Mozilla wouldn't have to, freeing up Mozilla developers to work on Linux support.

Basically, my long term goal is as much great free software as we can get. Thus I view pouring resources into development supporting non-free software as something to be avoided when possible. I would rather see the whole world concentrate on Linux rather than splitting resources between Linux and Windows. I think it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide their customers with internet standard support, or at the very least the customers responsibility to look into browser options before purchasing Windows. I would rather see everyone evaluate Linux with Mozilla and Windows with IE, and go with Linux/Mozilla because of it's great support.

Though I agree Windows/Mozilla is a necessary evil for the purposes of transitioning...but I can still whine about it from my idealist perspective :-)

#47 Sibling Rivalry

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Friday January 28th, 2000 3:39 PM

Reply to this message

Calling the builds for different platforms siblings is a good comparison. But when the parents (developers) start playing favorites and ignoring one of the children, that child could end up seriously disturbed.

#51 LOL, love the analogy :) (n/t) <:3)~~

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:19 PM

Reply to this message

LOL, love the analogy :) (N/T) <:3)~~

#57 Re: NS vs MS Market Share makes Linux most importa

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 11:04 PM

Reply to this message

Is it an operating system or a military uprising? I thought Linux was friendly until I read that.

If it kills Microsoft, I will be happy. I would probably buy a Macintosh computer though.

#18 Chat Client

by Hendy99 <gbhendy1@bigpond.net.au>

Friday January 28th, 2000 3:32 AM

Reply to this message

Not hooked up to the menu item in Build 2000012516 so I bookmarked the resource:/// page mentioned on mozilla.org. Usable :)

#20 SSL, Layers, Java and Shockwave

by Yarn

Friday January 28th, 2000 4:56 AM

Reply to this message

Are all I use Netscape 4.7 for now.

For SSL I will have to wait for plugins

Layers will never be supported in Moz, just have to wait for web developers to figure this out. (ahem, uptimes.net)

Java will need someone to beat a linux JDK around a bit, and I just dont know how to use the shockwave plugin with Moz yet.

#21 What I think needs fixing for beta

by leafdigital

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:07 AM

Reply to this message

Bug 1582 means I can't use a site which I *always* use every single day several times... I'm sure it causes similar problems for other people, to judge from the regularity of duplicates. I notice that this bug is marked beta anyway...

Also, right click/right click on context menus (rather than right click/left click) needs to work - broken user interface expectations are *really* unsettling. (17159 - this isn't marked beta, though it's 4.xP)

Obviously, all security functionality needs to be included as a matter of vital urgency, but I assume it will be in the Netscape-branded beta.

I don't know the bug number/s, but drag and drop doesn't seem to work, in particular two things I often use:

1. I can't drag an html file from my (NT) desktop into mozilla.

2. I can't drag a link from Mozilla to another Mozilla window and have it open that link in that window, this is VERY useful when you use multiple windows as you don't have to keep opening new ones and closing old ones.

Oh. And it needs to work with Netscape bookmarks automatically (maybe it does already if you use the proper installer).

These are the things which are keeping *me* from using Mozilla regularly.

Some other suggestions re sidebar, which is going to be a bit of a shock to the "general audience":

1. either turn off/fold in the sidebar by default (otherwise people are going to complain that it takes up loads of space and they can't figure out how to get rid of it) or else to make the stuff contained in it a bit easier to understand; from a usability point of view, the sidebar is a bit incomprehensible. :) Defaulting to bookmarks or search panel might help. 2. Where is the "add bookmark" feature on the bookmarks sidebar? And what about the "search" option on the search results sidebar [I know it says "search results" but it really needs to be a "search" place]? They're not too much use without those two things... if the sidebar isn't genuinely useful (ie including those features and others) by beta then it should default to off or folded; it can be shown off in the final release when it's actually some use.

3. Sidebar should have a history panel like IE's, this is genuinely useful, history seems to have vanished entirely from Mozilla... but this isn't essential by beta IMO.

--sam

#26 Re: What I think needs fixing for beta

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Friday January 28th, 2000 7:52 AM

Reply to this message

> 3. (...) history seems to have vanished entirely from Mozilla...

History is in the Tasks -> Tools submenu.

#22 beta

by doron

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:27 AM

Reply to this message

The sidebar needs to reworked. it is still buggy at times.

Also, in the URL viewer pane. Autocomplete seems to not have been implemented. And what about the themses?The installer should be working for beta

#23 CACHE!!!!!!!!!!!!

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:36 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, a disk cache is essential. Preferably one which caches everything except POSTs, like IE5. Hit "Work Offline" on IE and you can load up everything you looked at recently. Do the same on NS and you can't.

#30 Re: CACHE!!!!!!!!!!!!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday January 28th, 2000 9:24 AM

Reply to this message

Disk cache was suppose to land some weeks ago, judging by the newsgroups, but so far Intel hasn't delivered :(

<:3)~~

#34 Cache

by cmad

Friday January 28th, 2000 11:28 AM

Reply to this message

From what I've read, the cache was checked in, but has serious speed problems on Mac and NT, so it's not part of the default build.

#53 Really?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:21 PM

Reply to this message

Are we talking about the same cache here? I know that memory cache landed some weeks ago, but I don't know about disk cache.

<:3)~~

#66 Really.

by cmad

Saturday January 29th, 2000 9:12 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, there was another message in one the the developer newsgroups, just this week. Someone even said that we would probably be able to activate the disk cache (with a pref) in the next couple of days, once it is reworked to use the new nsIFile (whatever that is).

#68 YAY! (N/T) <:3)~~

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 10:45 AM

Reply to this message

YAY! (N/T) <:3)~~

#24 And now my page might be broken!?

by devNiall <niallk@my-deja.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 6:49 AM

Reply to this message

Damn, damn, and thrice damned. My page (<http://www.kst.com>) which has faithfully rendered perfectly (even the stylesheets) in previous milestones now has a nasty problem with a table expanding horizontally! Before I submit a bug report, can someone take a peek and let me know if it's my bad? It renders fine on everything else and passes HTML validators.

#46 Re: And now my page might be broken!?

by tupshin <tupshin@tupshin.com>

Friday January 28th, 2000 3:22 PM

Reply to this message

Must validate...I don't know what you've validated with, but everything I threw at it from w3c's validator to the one built into Cold Fusion Studio hated that doc. Any "real" validator will reject it outright because you don't have a doctype. First of all, figure out what level of HTML you want to be specifying(4.0 transitional?) and then add the appropriate DTD. Second of all, there is some seriously messed up stuff in that document. In order to actually be conformant, you will need to do a fair amount of fixing on this page. Thirdly, the actual tag that is throwing off the rendering is the hidden input tag in that form. I would be curious if that resolves itself once the doc validates. If not, file a bug.

#73 About W3C Validation

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 2:43 PM

Reply to this message

Is it necessary to make document type definitions in all uppercase letters or is the W3C "HTML/XHTML validator" worthless trash?

Anyway, I just spent a significant amount of time trying to make a Webpage and style sheet that met the following criteria:

1. Able to pass the W3C validation tests.

2. Functional in Netscape 4.7, Internet Explorer 5.01, and Mozilla M13.

Inernet Explorer could not handle rgb values in decimal form (255,213,123). Netscape could not handle making pink letters... Mozilla did not recognize the colors at all.

I finally got the style sheet working with Netscape and IE by ignoring the W3C recommendation and typing hexadecimal values. Then I got it working with Mozilla by adding # signs. Then I got the stupid document type definition working by making it all uppercase.

Why is all this necessary? Am I doing something wrong? It seems that using HTML 3.2 would be easier than using style sheets to make cross-browser Webpages. I am open to correction.

#79 Re: About W3C Validation

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday January 30th, 2000 1:45 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know about you but I've found the W3C html validator very useful in catching some major mistakes that I may have made. Yes, it is <b>EXTREMELY</b> picky but I've rarely ran across a problem with it while making pages still look good on IE, NS, and Mozilla.

The only problem that I repeatedly run across with the validator is with the NAME attribute in IMG tags, which I use when I need more complicated mouseovers.

However I know that this becomes much more of a pain when you start making more complicated pages, especially ones using CSS. NS 4.x has poor CSS support but it's fabulously supported in Mozilla. I have ran into a few problems with IE5 on some complicated CSS test pages I created some time ago (pages that NS rendered horribly but beautifully on Mozilla).

The best thing now, I'd say hope for a fast adoption rate of Mozilla when it is released so we can phase NS out as quickly as possible when designing pages!

<:3)~~

#85 Re: Re: About W3C Validation

by unapersson

Monday January 31st, 2000 2:22 AM

Reply to this message

If you want to use the name attribute with images you just need to validate to HTML4.01.

#62 Re: And now my page might be broken!?

by mbarrien

Saturday January 29th, 2000 3:03 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know if you problem is the same as mine (your link is down, and I did try to fix the bad URL given in the link), but I ran into this bug in M13 with rendering tables. It also expands it horizontally, but if I add what should be an unneeded closing tag, it fixes itself. Look at <http://mike.dhs.org/mysched3.htm> and compare it to <http://mike.dhs.org/mysched4.htm> . The only difference between the two is a </TH> on line 43. Since closing table related tags is optional, this shouldn't make a difference, but it does! Anyone have insight into this? (I'm not familiar with Bugzilla enough to find out if this is in the database...) (In case anyone is wondering, the HTML has been validated by the W3C validator. It's also not the style sheets fault either, since the same bug occurs when the stylesheet is disabled)

#67 Re: And now my page might be broken!?

by WillyWonka

Saturday January 29th, 2000 9:44 AM

Reply to this message

Are you sure closing tags is optional in tables? I've always come to the conclusion that MS thought they should be optional and thats why the code works in IE.

Netscape has always required closing tags in tables (as far as I know) thats why so many pages designed with IE are buggy (Which do not use DHTML)

#72 Closing tags have always been optional

by mbarrien

Saturday January 29th, 2000 2:20 PM

Reply to this message

Table related closing tags have always been optional since tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 (except for TABLE and CAPTION). To see the W3C HTML 4.01 specs about TH and TD go to <http://www.w3.org/TR/html…ruct/tables.html#h-11.2.6> and it states that closing tags are optional. Can't blame MS on this one...

#78 Not XHTML!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday January 30th, 2000 1:39 AM

Reply to this message

XHTML, pretty is almost the same to HTML, except that requires that you close all tags your tags or else it isn't valide XHTML.

<:3)~~

#27 What's with the dotted lines around form inputs?

by Quelish

Friday January 28th, 2000 7:58 AM

Reply to this message

I've noticed for a while that dotted lines show up around form inputs whenever the inputs get focus. What's the deal with that? If they are supposed to show that the input has had focus recently, then they sure are buggy. Only some inputs get them and then when they have the dotted lines they dissapear after a while. Weird behavior.

Oh, speaking of weird bahavior, check out Ebay with the latest build. Notice how the page looks weird until you click on the search box and all of a sudden the page displays correctly? I've noticed that on a lot of pages, including this one when I was writing this.

Little things like this seem to be the only major thing I can see keeping this project from going beta.

#28 Pages that don't work with Mozilla

by Quelish

Friday January 28th, 2000 8:03 AM

Reply to this message

Is there a list somewhere of pages that don't work with Mozilla? I for one have found quite a few that are totally screwed up in Moz....Like ESPN and Wired.

If there is not an existing list, I'd like to know because I'll write a page over the weekend for people to submit pages that don't work.

If we want to advocate Mozilla, we need to get the message out to sites that they need to write correct HTML! Otherwise people will use Moz, see a site that's screwed up, and not think twice about blaming it on the browser rather than the site authors.

#36 Re: Pages that don't work with Mozilla

by PhiSch

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:00 PM

Reply to this message

I agree,

i too have several pages that lock fine in NN 4.7 and IE 5 but are screwed up in Gecko. <http://www3.industries.de>

Phil

#31 Proxy autoconf not working?

by Belzebutt

Friday January 28th, 2000 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

I put my proxy autoconfiguration in the Preferences (which are starting to look polished), hit reload, even restart the browser, and it still doesn't seem to get my proxy settings. It actually tries to download the autoconf file, and says the MIME type is not defined or something. Needless to say proxy autoconf works find at my company on NN and IE.

#81 Re: Proxy autoconf not working?

by tialaramex

Sunday January 30th, 2000 5:53 PM

Reply to this message

Proxy autoconfig is not in yet. Most proxies do not NEED to be autoconfigured, so you can try M13 without. However, yes - this is a BETA1 issue. You cannot distribute Mozilla without autoconfig proxies to the drooling browser jockeys who are responsible for the magic 50% of web hits. So, gagan (for I think it is he!) needs to get autoconfig into M14.

#87 Re: Proxy autoconf not working?

by ssch

Monday January 31st, 2000 9:22 AM

Reply to this message

Perhaps I have missed something but proxy settings - even by hand - dont work for me at all (platform: WindowNT4.0)

#37 Themes

by kc7gza

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

I think the theme switching technology in mozilla needs to be working before we release a beta. While changing themes is not necessary by any means it needs to be there for one reason: the beta will get noticed.

Right now the majority of computer users have no clue what mozilla is. When the mozilla beta is released, the netscape beta will come shortly after and then all that will change. Netscape is one of the most recognized names on the Internet. When netscape communicator 5.0 beta is released people will notice. People will download it. People will write about it in computer web sites and magazines. People will compare it feature by feature to the competition. People are going to judge the entire open source concept be the success of the mozilla project. The technology to change themes has set mozilla back by months. And it was all worth it, but if it isn't there when this product goes to beta, most people aren't going to understand what took us so long and why we think mozilla is so great.

#40 Re: Themes

by Ben_Goodger

Friday January 28th, 2000 12:50 PM

Reply to this message

my guess would be that theme switching will come later, but the ability to skin the client properly should definitely be there by M14 (I have bugs assigned against me for the browser side anyway ;)

#44 MZ sidebar?

by tkc

Friday January 28th, 2000 2:39 PM

Reply to this message

I was hoping to go the chromeZone, but the sidebar (with the poll, builds, past news, etc) doesn't show up in M13. At least not while I'm using it *now*. Anyone else have this problem?

#52 A bug. It shows up, but not every time (n/t)

by mozineAdmin

Friday January 28th, 2000 5:19 PM

Reply to this message

#71 Beta components: most features done

by tbernard

Saturday January 29th, 2000 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

I think that to qualify as beta, development of the component must be complete, i.e. it has to be "done" (including QA) (or nearly complete and the missing features should be peripheral).

Notice here, I say component, I can certainly see the "Browser" component being beta and say "Composer" remaining alpha. Even though not all components of Mozilla would be beta, you could still call Mozilla a beta by carefully indicating in the release which parts are completed and which parts are not. For instance (hypothetical): <<< In this beta, the browser part is complete (except for Java) and should work correctly most of the time, experience shows that there are bugs remaining however, so expect some problems: the goal of the beta is to find these problems by running in as diverse an environment as possible. The Composer feature is still in development, about 75% of the functions are done. Also it has not been thoroughly tested, you can try it to see where we are going but do not expect it to work correctly all the time and there could be major problems. Please report any problem that you find through Bugzilla ...>>>

#74 another thing

by doron

Saturday January 29th, 2000 2:49 PM

Reply to this message

go to netscape.com. Does the mouseover effect work for you there? It does nto with me.

#76 The real reason for mail/news/editor

by mykmelez <myk@zapogee.com>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 5:38 PM

Reply to this message

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Netscape Communicator was originally a suite of products (Navigator, Mail/News, Composer, and others) sold in the business market to corporations who wanted an integrated suite that also worked well with Netscape's server-side products.

When Netscape created the Mozilla organization to build the next generation Netscape Communicator, it commissioned Mozilla with building a browser according to this model.

This model may be out of date, although clearly AOL/Netscape doesn't think so. Probably the only guys who can answer this question are the iPlanet folks (the joint Sun/AOL venture that now sells Netscape's server-side software to corporations). My guess is that there are a significant number of corporations who buy Netscape's products who still want an integrated suite, otherwise AOL would redeploy the Netscape developers to a different part of Mozilla.

Which brings us, once again, to open source, and it is apparently worth mentioning this once again: Mozilla is an open source project. It is free software (as in beer). You have ultimate control over its fate up to and including branching the entire project and building your own browser. Everyone at Mozilla is a "volunteer" including Netscape's employees. There is, therefore, no reason for them to build anything other than what they want for their own purposes. If they want mail/news, they get to build it. If you want just a browser, you get to build that. That's how free software works.

Instead of complaining (particularly about decisions already made and products already built), volunteer for the parts of the project you want to see succeed, or volunteer for another project that matches your interests more, or create your own project (branching Mozilla if necessary). There are already a number of other free software browser efforts going on (f.e. the KDE and Gnome browsers).

Or, if you'd rather get something for nothing, be prepared for the people who give it to you to decide what it is.

#77 1582

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday January 29th, 2000 5:41 PM

Reply to this message

I think they finally fixed bug 1582, at least partially. How could anyone not like Mozilla now?

#80 Linux and Glibc2.1

by Menix

Sunday January 30th, 2000 8:22 AM

Reply to this message

What about the only-running-on-Glibc2 problem, under linux ? I prefer not to upgrade my configuration, then I wait for a compatible version of Mozilla to use it. Is the problem off or not ?

#82 Re: Linux and Glibc2.1

by tialaramex

Sunday January 30th, 2000 6:15 PM

Reply to this message

This is not a Mozilla bug, therefore I think it's quite reasonable to require that you upgrade the broken component, in this case glibc. Your distribution ought to make this relatively painless, but unfortunately some distributors seem to think that it's a hobby (well in the case of Debian it is) and do not have an acceptable upgrade path yet. Those distributors do not have long to shape up. In summary -- "I don't want to" is not much of a reason to avoid glibc 2.1 Nick.

#84 Re: Re: Linux and Glibc2.1

by Menix

Monday January 31st, 2000 1:55 AM

Reply to this message

So I understand I will never use it under my linux installation.

#86 Well there goes one supporter.

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Monday January 31st, 2000 7:22 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder how many other people feel this way?

#88 Re: Well there goes one supporter.

by Menix

Tuesday February 1st, 2000 2:54 AM

Reply to this message

That's why I say so... Fortunately (hum...) at work, I use win9x... so I can try mozilla at work. But I regrets a lot not to have it on my linuxbox, particularly because I'm exhausted of Netscape 4.7's bugs : I use links now !!! <http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/>

#91 Re: Re: Well there goes one supporter.

by FrodoB

Tuesday February 1st, 2000 1:03 PM

Reply to this message

I assume that at some point in the future there will be a statically-linked binary made available for pre-Glibc2.1 users. They don't have the resources to make one nightly (and I don't know what that really entails, so don't quote me on this).

#83 Zarro Boogs! (nearly)

by tialaramex

Sunday January 30th, 2000 6:44 PM

Reply to this message

1. Bye bye "controller has no properties". I do not ever want to see a user trying to figure out why the arrow keys/ short-cuts/ whatever don't work. 2. Fix smearing of interlaced PNGs. This CANNOT be fixed by PNG experts because no-one seems to actually know how Mozilla's mask stuff is supposed to work. Assign someone to produce documentation for the mask backend, or if that's impossible (spaghetti) then kill it and write a new, documented replacement. 3. Track down and kill redraw bugs. Better to draw twice than not at all (or is that the problem, perhaps the background is drawn twice?) Wow, if this had been asked at M10 I'd have gone on for pages, so SOMEONE is doing something right. Keep plodding guys, I think you're nearly there :) Nick.

#89 proxy should handle name resolving

by kapde3

Tuesday February 1st, 2000 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

Workstations behind firewalls need not have a way to resolve names of external web servers. So, if the proxy mechanism is activated, the name resolving should be left to the proxy server. This is currently (M13) not the case and prevents me from testing Mozilla.

#90 proxy should handle name resolving

by kapde3

Tuesday February 1st, 2000 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

Workstations behind firewalls need not have a way to resolve names of external web servers. So, if the proxy mechanism is activated, the name resolving should be left to the proxy server. This is currently (M13) not the case and prevents me from testing Mozilla.