Full Article Attached Feature Status Update for Mozilla 0.9

Thursday May 10th, 2001

James Russell has the latest Feature Status Update for the Mozilla 0.9 Release. The update includes the latest status on the cache rewrite, imglib2, MathML, Mail-News, and LDAP, to name a few. Click the Full Article link to check it out!

#1 Typo

by johnlar

Thursday May 10th, 2001 2:14 PM

Umm shouldn't that be "right to left" instead of "left to right" in the BiDi description, we already read left to right, or have I been doing it wrong this whole time.

#3 Re: Typo

by Kovu

Thursday May 10th, 2001 3:56 PM

I'll get it fixed by the next update. I worked pretty hard on this, but even editors need editors.


#7 Great job

by onelists

Friday May 11th, 2001 2:34 AM

typo's pah... we all make them. Brilliant summaries like these? Well.. I wish we all could write them. Well done!!!


#8 Yep, a great read

by uksi

Friday May 11th, 2001 9:06 AM

I'm also impressed, very nice summary. Makes me think that I know what's going on :)

#9 Re: Typo

by WhackyLackey

Friday May 11th, 2001 10:02 AM

doog si efil ,ti tuoba pu dekrow oot teg t'ndluow i ,ekatsim nommoc a si opyt tfel ot thgir eht.

#10 hgru

by Brendon

Friday May 11th, 2001 10:23 AM

urgh.. that just completely killed my eyes.. hehe..

#18 Re: Typo

by WhackyLackey

Friday May 11th, 2001 3:34 PM

doog si efil ,ti tuoba pu dekrow oot teg t'ndluow i ,ekatsim nommoc a si opyt tfel ot thgir eht.

#2 how about text

by acristianb

Thursday May 10th, 2001 2:57 PM

I downloaded the latest mozilla (0.9) and I am using it right now posting this message. What I noticed though is the slight difference in the way it handles the text (at least the underline part) as opposed to IE (5.5). I would like to know if there is an easy way to set it up to underline text _exactly_ the same way IE does. Maybe a custom style sheet?

thank you

#35 Re: how about text

by hackel

Monday May 14th, 2001 12:50 PM

How about instead, you find a way for IE to render text EXACTLY the same way the HTML standards (i.e. Mozilla) does? Gee, what a crasy idea... :P Seriously, don\'t ever compromise for IE bugs...

#52 Re: Re: how about text

by cristib

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 11:39 AM

well, maybe you missed the point or I wasn't explicit enough. Either way, the point is that I would like mozilla to be customizable so that if I like the way IE renders text I choose that and if you like the way mozilla following standards (I would like to write here a percentage but I don't know enough) renders text you choose that and we both are two happy campers. maybe as a parallel I can give you the example of Ctrl-C Ctrl-V in windows as opposed to Alt-C Alt-V in unix (Motif).

#53 Re: Re: Re: how about text

by stfh

Tuesday May 22nd, 2001 2:26 PM

...and what if I want text to be rendered like Netscape4.x? Would we then have to make a preference to dumb-down the browser for that too? There's really no end to that once you get started. This is exactly the reason we HAVE standards, so that there are a firm set of rules which if everybody follows then nobody has do to that kind of pointless rework.

Ctrl-* vs. Alt-* is something different; that isn't defined by universal standards but by the conventions of the particular environment.

By the way, I'm curious what particular characteristics of text rendering you're referring to-- From my knowledge IE and Moz both follow standards fairly well regarding text; I don't notice hardly any difference between the two.


by fab

Thursday May 10th, 2001 5:33 PM

Little updates: -XSLT will be turned on very very soon in the nightlies. And there was much rejoice...

-XPCDOM branch has landed, resulting in some bad regressions and instability. Will be cleared soon enough.

-Modern 3 has landed, it's still being improved.

-BiDi landed today.

#5 and the peasants rejoiced...

by Tanaaln

Thursday May 10th, 2001 8:35 PM

This may not be directly related to 0.9, but the build for win32 today was really cool. (!) I haven\'t played around with the builds in the last few months because of the WinME internet connection problems. (microsoft\'s tech support site is completely useless... GAH!)

Anyway, I must say that I love modern 3, even though it still needs a little work... and overall the speed of page loading is astounding. XUL menus seem as fast as native ones, and the whole thing just feels solid. :)

I still can\'t quite use it as my main browser, as it triggers the ME bug faster than IE for some reason, but I look forward to the day that I have time to do a clean 98 install and can start using it more often.


#6 A few more bits and pieces :-)

by Gerv

Friday May 11th, 2001 1:01 AM

SCC's string changes landed a while ago. Gopher search support is also in, I believe.

If you want pages to test BiDi out on, try netscape.public.mozilla.i18n .

The SVG test build rocks :-)


#11 Font resizing lost?

by barryp

Friday May 11th, 2001 10:40 AM

What happened to the ability to increase/decrease font sizes in the View menu? I was really getting to dig that feature.

There seems to be a trend nowdays to use microscopically tiny fonts in webpages (I suppose the designers think it's cool), and that resize feature sure was good for battling that.

#12 Re: Font resizing lost?

by tny

Friday May 11th, 2001 11:12 AM

No, it's not the designers (or at least not always the designers). I had a client insist on 10pt text, though I told them it would be ureadable!

#34 Re: Re: Font resizing lost?

by ess

Monday May 14th, 2001 9:52 AM

Of course, it depends on the typeface you're using. On the Windows machines I use, ten-point Verdana is very agreeable. Times New Roman 10, on the other hand, is too small -- I prefer 12. But Verdana 12 looks like hell.

No, I don't really have a point, here...

#13 Re: Font resizing lost?

by gerbilpower

Friday May 11th, 2001 11:57 AM

Please don't generalize web designers 8PP Because I'm one of them, and although I have my own font preferences, I know they're not the same as everyone else, and I know how to use fixed font CSS values when designing my pages so people viewing the pages can use their browser to change their font sizes.


#14 Re: Font resizing lost?

by sodapop3k

Friday May 11th, 2001 12:59 PM

Well, ctrl+ & ctrl- do work. It makes all hell break loose in the build I'm using now though.

#15 Re: Font resizing lost?

by billpena

Friday May 11th, 2001 1:15 PM

It *is* a useful feature that should be brought back, because barryp is half-right (I'm a designer, and I want to rip /some/ inconsiderate Win-centric designers' fingers off for the CSS abberations they create), and because, yes, I was getting used to it too! Dammit!

This is a feature that Konqueror has too, and that I use quite often when straying from the Moz path. Konqueror has gained great, well-deserved esteem lately, 'specially compared to Mozilla for Linux; I think the Moz community would do well to keep an eye on Konq.

#16 Re: Font resizing lost?

by fab

Friday May 11th, 2001 3:14 PM

This is a known bug and for some reason the menu item no longer appears in the nightlies. It seems the overlay is no longer loaded. If anyone has any idea or fix, please make yourself known.


#17 Re: Font resizing lost?

by PaulA

Friday May 11th, 2001 3:22 PM

Are you talking about 0.9 or a nightly? Besides ctrl-/ctrl+ I see Text Size right there in the View menu where it has always been...

#19 PSM 2.0

by sneakums

Saturday May 12th, 2001 11:14 AM

PSM 2.0 no longer uses a separate daemon, so the description quoted from the materials is incorrect.

#20 WHAT?????

by prokosch

Saturday May 12th, 2001 5:03 PM


----------------- Why the name "libpr0n"?

The main goal of the library is to render pornographic images in an efficient way. Plus, the name "imglib2" is boring

Do you plan to make any money from libpr0n?

The intention is to restrict the version of libpr0n shipped with Mozilla to a fixed number of pixels per session. To unlock the restriction, users will be encouraged to register their copy (we estimate that this will be about $34.95). ------------

#21 Re: WHAT?????

by gerbilpower

Saturday May 12th, 2001 5:21 PM

It's a joke, relax. Look at the silly colors of the graphic and think about the even sillier restrictions on "libpr0n's" potential.


#22 Re: Re: WHAT?????

by prokosch

Saturday May 12th, 2001 5:29 PM

I have assumed that :)) Thanks, I should have had more trust in Mozilla. But, anyway, don't you think that some people may _really_ take this as a real thing? The link in the news leads to after all, and I have already seen this FAQ being used by some people in arguments (mostly the ones who always say Mozilla was really slow and bloated :))

#23 Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by gerbilpower

Saturday May 12th, 2001 6:33 PM

There are a number of clues all over the page that indicate that it's a joke. I mean look at the "small text" disclaimer on the main page. As long as the clues are there, I think it's just fine (and darn funny!).

I think the problem is that too many people don't understand scarcasm. It's a problem with in journalist writes a satire, or when Randy Newman wrote the song "Short People" and a lot of people actually thought that he really hated short people, or when Slashdot (and I still can't believe they did this) posted the "news" release from claiming the patent to online happy faces ":)" (and this was without the "foot" graphic Slashdot uses to indicate humor).



#25 Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by AlexBishop

Sunday May 13th, 2001 6:42 AM

The UK's least-favourite phone monopoly, British Telecommunications (BT), claimed that they owned the US patent on hyperlinks. Except they weren't joking.

The Other Alex

#26 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by gerbilpower

Sunday May 13th, 2001 12:56 PM

Yes, but if you saw the "press release," or visited any other part of their web site or bought some of their posters, you knew that they had to be joking 8P


#29 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by AlexBishop

Sunday May 13th, 2001 6:33 PM

Oh yeah, I realise that's patent claim was obviously a joke, but I was just saying that not all stupid patent claims are jokes.

The Other Alex

#43 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by gerbilpower

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 1:56 AM

Yeah, sorry if I just came a little rough. As one to regularly reads The Onion and many other things, my mood changes too quickly when someone can't seem to interpret jokes and scarcasm 8P


#39 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by gwalla

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 12:42 AM

You expected Slashdotters to actually click on the links in the article? Pshaw! ;)

#41 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by gerbilpower

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 1:54 AM

ROFL, good point.

Although considering that some sites do get "slashdotted," maybe the problem is not that they aren't clicking on the links, they're just not reading them :)


#40 Re: Re: Re: WHAT?????

by gwalla

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 12:44 AM

"and I have already seen this FAQ being used by some people in arguments (mostly the ones who always say Mozilla was really slow and bloated :))"

These people need to grow a sense of humor.

#24 must wait...some...more....

by arielb

Sunday May 13th, 2001 2:42 AM

I really need that mathML and bidi to do that project that I was waiting for since the mozilla source was first released. I don't mind waiting since it's not like IE can do it either. But I still can't wait for mozilla 1 because I think i'm the only one in the universe who still uses Netscape 4.74 on windows

#37 Re: must wait...some...more....

by i387

Monday May 14th, 2001 7:23 PM

Well, for browsing I don't use N4, but Messenger still kicks major butt.

#27 What ever happened to SilentDownload???

by ksheka

Sunday May 13th, 2001 2:40 PM

What ever happened to the SilentDownload project? It's still listed on and really sounds like a killer idea, but the project status page hasn't been updated in over 2 years!

Frankly, I think this may be one of those "killer app" sort of things if it really catches hold. I'm probably not the only one who would download linux distros over my 56k line if it was being done in the background and didn't interfere with my general browsing experience.

#28 Transparency

by oliversl

Sunday May 13th, 2001 3:29 PM

Will be have transperency(menus) in Mozilla? I read that ViewManager3 should have that.

#30 Re: Transparency

by masi

Monday May 14th, 2001 2:14 AM

Hmm, do we actually NEED this? Is there any point in that feature besides being incredible cool?

#42 it used to work

by RvR

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 1:54 AM

...look at that :

(from bug #50562)

#44 Re: it used to work

by gerbilpower

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 1:57 AM

BTW, is this transparency a CSS property, PNG image, or just some custom in Mozilla?



#46 Re: It used to work

by johnlar

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 9:22 AM

You get such transparencies from editing the CSS in the chrome. I used to do it, but it doesn't work now, just makes the menus lighter but you can't see through them :( edit in chrome (perferably in the user pref directory) the file userchrome.css (this file will probably not exist, create it) and add the line menupopup { -moz-opacity: 0.5 !important; }

thats 1 line btw

#47 Re: It used to work

by johnlar

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 9:24 AM

That should be<p> menupopup { -moz-opacity: 0.5 !important; }

#48 Re: It used to work

by johnlar

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 9:24 AM

oh nevermind you get the point?? how do you force a line break in mozillazine?

#49 Re: Re: It used to work

by gerbilpower

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 9:29 AM

Does the br tag work? Let's see: <br>testing

If "texting" is on a line of its own, it works. If not, then I guess the tags are being stripped from the messages.


#50 Re: Re: It used to work

by bugs4hj

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 12:53 PM




#51 Re: Re: Re: It used to work

by gerbilpower

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 1:44 PM

I think he means a line break without separating it with an emty line in between like with the <br> tag, only we can't put tags into our posts.


#32 Re: Transparency

by Beafsteak

Monday May 14th, 2001 8:56 AM

I'm sorry to report that this doesn't seem to work. I added 'menu { -moz-opacity: 0.5;}' to userChrome.css' and the menus just turned grey-ish instead of transparent

#31 view source..all wrong

by doron

Monday May 14th, 2001 3:03 AM

Um, the "view source" listing is totally wrong. All I am doing is giving the view soruce window UI. The backend was rewritten but not by me. Also, syntax highlight was sped up by bz and rbs.

#38 Re: view source..all wrong

by Kovu

Monday May 14th, 2001 7:47 PM

I did e-mail you for an update. Who rewrote the backend, do you know?


#33 "Multipart JPEG" broken/missing

by greggmc

Monday May 14th, 2001 9:48 AM

What's up with this in the new image libs. All my "camserv" pages no longer stream.

#36 Re: "Multipart JPEG" broken/missing

by wdormann

Monday May 14th, 2001 2:20 PM

JPEG Push is working somewhat in the nightlies, but it's a bit flaky. Please check out:

#45 View source not working

by zreo2

Wednesday May 16th, 2001 3:37 AM

I think its great that Mozilla now is highlighting the text when you view the source code. BUT! Its useless right now! The source seems to caches often when I view the source I get a source code that is old... And it is also taking to much time (as many other things in Mozilla to view the source right now).