MozillaZine

Full Article Attached BugDay is Moving!

Tuesday May 29th, 2001

Asa Dotzler writes: "BugDay is moving. More than a year and a half has passed since the fist Tuesday BugDay and it seems like a good time to change. Starting this week (tomorrow, 05/30/01) BugDay is moving to Wednesdays." Click the full article link to find out more about BugDay, and how you can get involved.


#1 The web page editor

by Mazen <mazen@artmagic.com>

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 8:09 PM

Reply to this message

I was testing Mozilla lately and started working with the web page editor (which I had not used in close to a year.)

I was happy to see that it's coming along, but as I worked on it, something disturbed me. It seems that it rewrites (and reformats) HTML code. Is this afeature that can be turned off? I don't touch FrontPage precisely for this reason.

#13 Re: The web page editor

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 5:20 PM

Reply to this message

Edit > Preferences > Composer > When Saving Files > Retain original source formatting :-)

Alex

#17 Thank you

by Mazen <mazen@artmagic.com>

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 10:04 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you for your message. I should have looked more closely before posting my message.

#2 Hey

by BobSoros <BobSoros@soros.ath.cx>

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 8:36 PM

Reply to this message

somebody wanna start an off topic thread that would be better placed on a realtime system such as IRC ?

Willing to chat on subjects such as much passion for walks on sunset beaches, fine wine and candle lit dinners. Thanks for your time

#3 ok

by joschi

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 11:25 PM

Reply to this message

Insert "IE sooo supierior" drivel here...

#4 Re: ok

by BobSoros <BobSoros@soros.ath.cx>

Tuesday May 29th, 2001 11:50 PM

Reply to this message

Well IE is superior, but Konquerer is by far the greatest piece of collective harmonized code to every grace itself upon the world. You should use konquerer because it is by far superior to anything ever written. If you dont use it, You should be punished forever, as I will cast you in the lake of fire.

By the way, mangelo's site has a new headline "release 0.9.1 pushed back again" or some such garbage.. Just thought I would let all you guys working on mozilla know :) Laugh, he really is getting hysterical. Too bad crappy news sites like /. actually respond to that drivel.

ciao

#5 Re: Re: ok

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 12:48 AM

Reply to this message

Is Mangelo's the MozillaQuest guy?

That site has been spewing misleading headlines since I laid my eyes on it. ::sigh:: I say that we start emailing/complaining to him about this. Nothing is going to change unless we do something :)

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#6 Re: Re: Re: ok

by Salsaman

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 6:20 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah yeah...Mozilla is gonna sue Mangelo...! I'm off to post a story on it on /. right now !

#15 ROFL (N/T)

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 8:59 PM

Reply to this message

#7 Re: ok

by macpeep

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

I just have one question for you.. Where did you get that finnish barf bag from!?

#9 Re: Re: ok

by joschi

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

haha... i forget, it was one some website that had wierd pictures... the jpg was really lofi, so i had to clean it a bit ... but unfortuantely, it made it look less like a bag... oh well...

#8 Chatzilla not working any more?

by eiseli

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 11:34 AM

Reply to this message

Hey all,

I've not used chatzilla in a while and now I'd like to join for bug day again. But it seems to look like Chatzilla doesn't want to connect to moznet. What's the problem? it used to work just fine!

#16 Chatzilla still works

by WillyWonka

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 9:54 PM

Reply to this message

Chatzilla still works. It's a little annoying to get connected though.

I have to do this to connect to servers.

/server irc.mozilla.org <wait to see if you connect> if you don't /cancel /disconnect then press up 3 times <enter> if it doesn't connect. up 3 times <enter> up 3 times <enter> if it doesn't connect... repeat.

It's annoying, but eventually you get connected.

#10 Less bugs being fixed & small tiny rant.

by Nemo_NX

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 3:18 PM

Reply to this message

<http://bonsai.mozilla.org…e=&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot>

Is it just me or has the number of new checkin's decrease a lot lately? They need an "a=" from somebody now, so three people are required to test the patch? That really sucks. What&#8217;s worse is that the "Cannot delete IE Favorites" bug has been changed from being fixed by Mozilla .92 to never. Chen changed it even though he doesn't even work on the bookmarks manager, Ben does that. It'll be interesting to see what Ben has to say about this interesting development. Heh, about 7 people responded after Chen changed it and boy were they pissed off. :) Seems like someone has a fix for it but I really doubt that person will find 3 people to sign off on it. :( Oh well. Since Mozilla ain't going to be done until October at the earliest, this bugs gonna be tossed every which way until someone has the guts to fix it. Yeah sure fixing crashers first is nice, but they'll always be that "new" crasher that's got to be fixed. At some point you gotta say "it's stable enough" and go on to something else. And what the heck is that voting system for then if no one will fix the most popular bugs even as simple as the IE favorites one? Btw, that bug is already half-fixed. Ben got the backend done and needs to redo the front end (FE). Actually, he&#8217;s been having a heck of a time keeping the FE stable for some reason or another. I would like to ask that if anyone knows how to do FE work for Mozilla to help him out a little. He could really use the help will all the other stuff he&#8217;s got to do. Not sure if he&#8217;s planning on landing an outliner version of his bookmark manager, but if he does then that&#8217;s going to take a bit of time to do correctly and get approved. :/

With all these crash landings that have been going on lately, I'm not really surprised at what has happened. Mozilla needs a lot of work to be done still and the KDE web browser and Opera keep coming out with new "non-beta" versions of their browser all the time. My question is that when will the developers realize that Mozilla needs to be a web browser first and everything else can come second like an editor, chat program,.. etc? I'd like to see the problem where Mozilla can't render more than 25% of the web pages out there correctly improved to something like 75%. Can this be an attainable goal. Probably not, since the Netscape people think that web developers should design their site around their browser. Guess what? Ain&#8217;t gonna happen. They don&#8217;t care about Netscape anymore. So, what I guess I&#8217;m saying is that we need to write code to support badly developed web pages that IE seems to handle okay. It&#8217;s ain&#8217;t gonna be faster and it sure ain&#8217;t going to be standards compliant but it&#8217;ll &#8220;look&#8221; correct finally. If they don&#8217;t do this then I&#8217;m stuck using IE because it works and Mozilla doesn&#8217;t. End of argument.

I leave you with a comment made by one of the Netscape developers on that IE Favorites bug. I love what he said as it sums up my frustration on the issue; &#8220;Additional Comments From <sfraser@netscape.com> 2001-05-29 16:56 ------- Oh man. This bug has 70 votes, 9 dupes, and was one of the oft-commented on "features" of NS 6 that people disliked. Why why why?&#8221;

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22642>

#11 Aaaak! Just read this one instead. :(

by Nemo_NX

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 3:21 PM

Reply to this message

<http://bonsai.mozilla.org…e=&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot>

Is it just me or has the number of new checkin's decrease a lot lately? They need an "a=" from somebody now, so three people are required to test the patch? That really sucks. What's worse is that the "Cannot delete IE Favorites" bug has been changed from being fixed by Mozilla .92 to never. Chen changed it even though he doesn't even work on the bookmarks manager, Ben does that. It'll be interesting to see what Ben has to say about this interesting development. Heh, about 7 people responded after Chen changed it and boy were they pissed off. :) Seems like someone has a fix for it but I really doubt that person will find 3 people to sign off on it. :( Oh well. Since Mozilla ain't going to be done until October at the earliest, this bugs gonna be tossed every which way until someone has the guts to fix it. Yeah sure fixing crashers first is nice, but they'll always be that "new" crasher that's got to be fixed. At some point you gotta say "it's stable enough" and go on to something else. And what the heck is that voting system for then if no one will fix the most popular bugs even as simple as the IE favorites one? Btw, that bug is already half-fixed. Ben got the backend done and needs to redo the front end (FE). Actually, he's been having a heck of a time keeping the FE stable for some reason or another. I would like to ask that if anyone knows how to do FE work for Mozilla to help him out a little. He could really use the help will all the other stuff he's got to do. Not sure if he's planning on landing an outliner version of his bookmark manager, but if he does then that's going to take a bit of time to do correctly and get approved. :/

With all these crash landings that have been going on lately, I'm not really surprised at what has happened. Mozilla needs a lot of work to be done still and the KDE web browser and Opera keep coming out with new "non-beta" versions of their browser all the time. My question is that when will the developers realize that Mozilla needs to be a web browser first and everything else can come second like an editor, chat program,.. etc? I'd like to see the problem where Mozilla can't render more than 25% of the web pages out there correctly improved to something like 75%. Can this be an attainable goal. Probably not, since the Netscape people think that web developers should design their site around their browser. Guess what? Ain't gonna happen. They don't care about Netscape anymore. So, what I guess I'm saying is that we need to write code to support badly developed web pages that IE seems to handle okay. It's ain't gonna be faster and it sure ain't going to be standards compliant but it'll "look" correct finally. If they don't do this then I'm stuck using IE because it works and Mozilla doesn't. End of argument.

I leave you with a comment made by one of the Netscape developers on that IE Favorites bug. I love what he said as it sums up my frustration on the issue; "Additional Comments From <sfraser@netscape.com> 2001-05-29 16:56 ------- Oh man. This bug has 70 votes, 9 dupes, and was one of the oft-commented on "features" of NS 6 that people disliked. Why why why?"

#18 Re: Aaaak! Just read this one instead. :(

by macpeep

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 11:57 PM

Reply to this message

Shhh.. Careful now! You don't want to be saying anything negative about Mozilla around here. Just stick with the official mantra that IE sucks and Mozilla rules and spell Microsoft with a $ and you'll be fine. Don't start doing any thinking of your own now, ok?

#20 Re: Re: Aaaak! Just read this one instead. :(

by Nemo_NX

Thursday May 31st, 2001 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

Was a little too lazy about typing the $ thing, sorry. :)

#12 Re: Less bugs being fixed & small tiny rant.

by fab

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 3:34 PM

Reply to this message

For your information, current checkins require a= (approved) because we are in the 0.9.1 tree freeze. See the roadmap for the reasons for this freeze. Only checkins deemed important enough by the <drivers@mozilla.org> happen. When 0.9.1 is branched, checkins will happen again normally.

And on a side note, since I use Mozilla on a daily basis, I don't know where you got your 25%-of-the-sites-render-correctly number, but it's certainly not my experience. More like 80% actually.

<sarcasm>Have you even tried the nightlies? ;)</sarcasm>

#14 Re: Less bugs being fixed & small tiny rant.

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday May 30th, 2001 8:24 PM

Reply to this message

We're in the 0.9.1 Milestone Freeze. This happens with ALL milestones. Only approved check-ins are permitted (low risk, deemed very important for that milestone, and properly reviewed). Since only high priority bugs are being checked-in, there are fewered check-ins.

The check in rate has been actually going pretty quickly. It took FOREVER for all the approved check-ins to be checked-in for Milestones 0.9 and 0.8.1.

The milestone branch is TENTATIVELY scheduled for May 31, so once that happens, 0.9.1 will be stablizing on its own happy development branch while work on the next milestones moves forward without the restrictions of the milestone freeze.

FUTURE does not mean never. I don't have the exact definition with me on hand but it's been stated several times before on the newsgroups that it does not mean never. However, this does mean that it's priority has been somewhat reduced or just that there's no stated milestone it should go in, but someone already has the UI patches, so we already have progress on the bug.

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#19 Re: Less bugs being fixed & small tiny rant.

by dipa

Thursday May 31st, 2001 12:42 AM

Reply to this message

I see positive signs in Mozilla development status: there is a lot of progress on performance and embedding bugs. Stability and features are in a level adequate to assign some people on performance work. Off course, product quality is still not adequate for official release (that said for macpeep-like critics).

If those crash landings (module rewrites etc) end some day, regression bugs will be return to normal levels. So, most developers will have time available for performance optimizations, new features and "future" bugs.

My question is: are there any crash landings scheduled for the near future? I suppose that the (pending for checkin) CSS rewrite isn't of high risk.

#32 Re: Re: Less bugs being fixed & small tiny rant.

by fab

Friday June 1st, 2001 1:52 AM

Reply to this message

>I suppose that the (pending for checkin) >CSS rewrite isn't of high risk.

you can never be sure -- hehehehehe

Fabian.

#33 Re: Re: Re: Less bugs being fixed & small tiny ra

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday June 1st, 2001 1:58 AM

Reply to this message

Hyatt's CSS Rule Rewrite is a pretty significant checkin, and it was just checked in earlier today and I haven't used a build with it yet, but it got a lot more critiques that other checkins of significant size.

But oh well, we'll find out soon enough :)

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#34 css rule rewrite

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday June 1st, 2001 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

the nightly is pretty good, the GUI seems to have become more responsive because of this checkin :)

haven't noticed any significant drop in memory usage, but i haven't compaired it to earlier builds yet.

#21 Jedbro

by jedbro

Thursday May 31st, 2001 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

NEMO_NX

Not to bash on you bro, but you need to give alitle more info on your posting. And no,MACPEEP, I for one, and believe it's the same for the others, don't expect or even WANT you to be a MS (M$) basher and think Mozilla rocks.

What I'm saying is, it does no good to say, mozilla sucks, I can't do crap, you need to support "bad" code (an oximoron?) blah blah blah..

First off, back yourself with facts, 20%?? I too use Mozilla daily and have only reached 2, 2 frick'm sites that don't work in Mozilla, and that is because it's javascript spacific, and is IE only.

What sites can you not render in mozilla? Post 'em on here, and I'll check them out, and either file a bug, or e-mail the webmaster about his illegal code. It's that easy.

IE fav's WILL be fixed, just be patient. We're not even at a 1.0 yet, what the Frick do you want? How many software titles are worthy of praise in their first release (and we're still not even there yet)? None to few on my list.

Cheers

#22 Re: Jedbro

by Nemo_NX

Thursday May 31st, 2001 12:11 PM

Reply to this message

A few things that I like to point out. I got that 25% statistic from somebody else and what that person was saying at the time was that Mozilla can't render EXACTLY like IE. Mozilla always seems to have a few "issues" with it. That's what I was trying to get at. Please note that the below problems do not exist at all in IE.

<http://www.excite.com>, Look at the textboxes under My stocks and My horoscope. The upper and left side borders are black and not gray like in IE. It makes it look like they're overlapping or something. Also the text box for the search bar is way too small. The last thing that is rendered wrong is that there are no border around each news section of the page.

<http://my.netscape.com/> Log in and you can't drag and drop the news boxes like you can in IE. Damn, ain't that a shame? The text boxes are black in the same areas as well. Looks really ugly. :(

<http://www.shacknews.com/> Minor layout issues. The sidebar template is being overlapped for some dumb reason. I actually tried to save this page and edit out all the unneeded crap to try and see if I can fix the problem. I can't! The Mozilla editor won't display it correctly and won't save the images and reload it correctly. I can't even do a "Edit Page" thing anymore. Keeps telling not to save the file first. So, how the hell do you fix this one and how do you test it to see if it will work correctly? You can't, and I keep waiting for someone to fix whatever bug is causing it. You can not also use Flat mode or Dthread correctly like you can in IE. If you click on one of the posts, that post gets shown on top of the thread without refreshing the web page. IE DOM needs to be included since too much work was done to get it right the first time around. Go ask Steve about that but don't bug him to fix it! He's heard enough of that crap and is currently trying to get other features done at this time (and sell a few nifty T-shirts as well). Also, a few little gray color areas are missing here <http://adserver.ugo.com/h…hugashack&size=468x60> (also a line spacing issue) and here <http://adserver.ugo.com/h…hugashack&size=468x60>.

<http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/> The underline bar below the text is too big compared to IE. Looks worse on the sidebar. :(

<http://gallery.bearchive.com/ugallery/> A real poor example of a site with textbox spacing issues. Do NOT click on the link if your under 18. :)

<http://www.pricewatch.com/> When clicking on any of the links in the middle, it won't show a pop up menu like in IE. Instead it'll list the items on a different page.

<http://www.csuohio.edu/index-in-revision.html> Go bug them about it if you like. :)

Even if these problems are fixed, I'd still wait for the Netcaptor <http://www.netcaptor.com> version of this thing to come out. I open up a LOT of links per day so it's become a necessity for me to use while surfing the net. Maybe K-Galleon will do it instead. :)

As for the IE favorites thing, after Mozilla .9 came out Ben changed the fix date to Mozilla .92. It used to be set on future. Ben felt that he would get around to it by then. Upon reading his weekly updates, it doesn't sound like he'll get to it soon. :( So with .92 work starting soon, Chen decides to SWITCH it back to future! It's like have your love one make you a promise and then break it soon afterwards. :( I want to also mention one other thing about this bug. It is REALLY close to be fixed. Not properly but enough just to get rid of the damn folder. The backend is done by Ben and the front end sorta exits. The only way you can delete the folder nowadays is to select the folder and press the menu button on the menu bar. All we need now is a twisty to tie the two things together and say "When this folder is deleted, IT $@$%#$% STAYS DELETED!!!!!!!!". :)

#23 Re: Jedbro

by Gerv

Thursday May 31st, 2001 4:02 PM

Reply to this message

Well, unless you expect Mozilla to render arbitrarily-broken HTML, knock out all the ones that don't pass the W3C validator. If they pass, we should be getting it right.

Then, knock out all the ones that detect the "Netscape" string and assume we support layers. This is bad browser sniffing on their part.

Also, remember that HTML is not a page description language. Unless the author has styled them to a particular size, we are allowed to render e.g. text boxes any way we want.

Lastly, make very sure that it's not IE which is misrendering it. I've come across one bug like this recently - "IE is the only thing that renders this right!" -> "Actually, Mozilla gets it right; your CSS is wrong but IE is broken too."

Gerv

#24 Re: Re: Jedbro

by Nemo_NX

Thursday May 31st, 2001 6:55 PM

Reply to this message

All that matters is hows it looks not how bad the code is. We need a option for specific websites that look crappy in Mozilla to render as close as it can to IE. Not and easy task to do and probably impossible. :( The text box border just plain looks bad. I'm gonna bug Rods about that one or maybe submit a bug (my first one!) and see what happens. :/

#26 Re: Re: Re: Jedbro

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday May 31st, 2001 9:15 PM

Reply to this message

I think you missed the point: WHY is it so important that Mozilla render EXACTLY like IE? Although not always the case, I can show you many examples where Mozilla (and other browsers, such as Opera and Konqueror) is rendering exactly like the way the specs are saying, but IE renders it incorrect (such as IE5/Win's rather odd and incorrect box model support is one). Should Mozilla support IE5/Win's messy box model support, when IE5/Mac and Opera also impliment it correctly (and strangly, a guide on CSS on Microsoft's very own web site explains the box model specs correctly)?

Granted, Mozilla still has layout bugs, and those should be corrected according to the W3C's specifications, especially since everyone else (except IE5 on Windows in some areas) is doing this as well.

Messy code is an issue. The W3Cs say how each CSS or HTML element works and how it should look when used correctly. They do not say how the page should look when the code is incorrect. For minor mistakes, there isn't really a problem, but if significant portions of the code is messy or incorrect, there is no guarentee.

The textbox border color is a trival issue. The textbox is a widget, different operating systems have used different widgets of varying appearances for years. The W3C specs also does not specify how a textbox should look as long as they function as they should. What you're talking about is personal preference, and I personally don't mind the darker border. If it's that much of a concern for you, email the webmaster and tell them to use CSS to stylize the textbox.

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#27 Re: Re: Re: Re: Jedbro

by Nemo_NX

Thursday May 31st, 2001 9:34 PM

Reply to this message

The textbox color looks like the default color for the thing and looks like this on several wepages includeing the ones I mentioned. I really do think that this is a Mozilla bug.

Now to answer the testbox issue and webpage layout issue in one quick sentence, I say this; IT LOOKS UGLY! In IE it doesn't look ugly. Amazing how many peole ignor the importence of that point. Webpages are an art form all to themself. Trust me when I say that you don't want two art museums showing the Mona Lisa with two diferent brightness of light shined on it. The really bright one with take color away from the painting and the other bightness would show the colors of the painting clearer. That's where I see Mozilla and IE. They got to be the same to be more SATISFYING. Please tell me that you can agree with me on this point. Please. Pretty please? I really don't want to start anouther flame war here. I've edited out all the cuss words and stuff before I post my remarks and I'm not instulting anybody. I just want to see if I can get people to agree with what I'm saying, that's all. :/ Someday soon I'll show you pics of what I'm talking about, okay?

#30 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jedbro

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday May 31st, 2001 10:41 PM

Reply to this message

I am not ignoring asthetics here. I work with information design in a part-time job where I balance usability, presentation of information, and it's overall appearance and its affect on what I want/need to accomplish (even if my audience cannot consciously perceive the subtle artistic impressions I put in), plus I do my own web site and graphics on the side. And the web is definitely an art of its own, but it is not like a newspaper or going to a museum to see the Mona Lisa where the environment can be controlled in a way so things are shown exactly as intended. The Mona Lisa is in a museum, a single museum, and people can see it in a single room with controlled lighting from a single roof.

And I'm a person who complains about watching movies on TV since the TV ruins the subtle cinematographic effects filmmaker put into a work, BTW :)

However, the web is different. People do not come together to single computer running a single browser just to visit web sites. You're talking about people spanning the globe from the latest machines to some "Old Faithfuls." People have their preference on what browser they want to use (hopefully a standards compliant one), the screen brightness they prefer, different gamma settings, different fonts and dpi settings, etc etc etc.

In short, the web design is not like magazine or newspaper design. They do share concepts and various similarities, but they also differ greatly. In newspapers and magazines, you have benefit of the design presented on a universal standard called paper displayed with another universal standard called ink. These variables can be controlled by the people who design them. Currently, this is not possible with web design unless you create all your pages as images and save them as PNGs with gamma correction to compensate for different monitor settings.

Usability is also a big issue on the web, since the underlying principle of how the web operates is the exchange of information, so the user must have some power over how a web page looks on their computer in order to access the information they are looking. If the contrast bothers their eyes, they can adjust their monitor. If the font is too small for them, they should be able to use a browser setting (that Mozilla has) to increase the size of the fonts being displayed.

The purpose of web standards is so that things can look exactly the same when possible, which means very reasonabily the same most of the time. The vast majority of the time, subtle differences exist due to the factors I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

All the pages with forms I'm looking at, ones not using CSS to manipulate the physical appearance of the form element, all have the darker borders in Mozilla. This is only a bug if you can convincingly argue that this somehow hinders the intuitiveness of the form or confuses the user in such a way that might prevent them from using it. Also, the W3C specs does not say that textboxes must have a light grey border.

In my opinion, the grey border does look better than a black one, but this is a personal preference issue. And how do you know that the person who is designing the site prefers a black border, or doesn't think there is a significant enough issue to impact their design? As I said, CSS is available that lets the designer stylize form elements, including the border style and color.

Yes, I have ICQ, but I'm not on it often enough for any reasonable real time chat. I think these issues are revelant to a lot of people so they should be posted here. Otherwise, you can also email me. My email is posted with each MozillaZine post.

Alex <http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

#29 You got ICQ?

by Nemo_NX

Thursday May 31st, 2001 9:44 PM

Reply to this message

Be nice if we can "chat" about these issues. :)

#35 Re: Re: Re: Jedbro

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

"All that matters is hows [sic] it looks not how bad the code is. We need a option for specific websites that look crappy in Mozilla to render as close as it can to IE."

Which version of IE? Version 5? On Windows or Mac? And IE 6 promises to be more standards compliant. Should we update Gecko so it renders badly coded pages like IE6? In that case we may as well disband the W3C and let Microsoft set Web standards. Or should we have an option to make badly coded pages render as they do in Netscape Navigator 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x? Best add support for Opera-like rendering as well. And NCSA Mosaic. And any other browser you care to think of.

Supporting rendering options for all those browsers is going to be time consuming. Wouldn't it be great if there was one set of standards that we could just obey. Oh yeah, there is. The W3C standards. <http://www.w3.org/>

Early on in the development of Mozilla Seamonkey, the decision was made to obey Web standards as closely as possible. Support for non-standard 'extensions' - be they from Netscape, IE or any other browsers - was dropped. The idea being that it would make it easier for Web developers to code pages and accelerate the expansion of the Web into areas such as PDAs, set-top boxes and Internet fridges (think coding for IE on Windows and Mac is hard? Try Windows, Mac, PDAs, set-top boxes, Internet fridges...)

Even Microsoft acknowledges the importance of standards. Each version of IE is successfully more standards compliant. Eventually, IE's rendering engine(s) may be as standards compliant as Gecko. And then page authors will have to update their pages to standards whether they like it or not. So they may as well do so now. It's quite simple to make pages that conform to standards but still render well in IE and Navigator 1-4.

Supporting IE's 'standards' is impractical, likely to only have short term gains and could slow down the adoption of Web standards. It's just not worth it.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#36 Re: Re: Re: Jedbro

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

"All that matters is hows [sic] it looks not how bad the code is. We need a option for specific websites that look crappy in Mozilla to render as close as it can to IE."

Which version of IE? Version 5? On Windows or Mac? And IE 6 promises to be more standards compliant. Should we update Gecko so it renders badly coded pages like IE6? In that case we may as well disband the W3C and let Microsoft set Web standards. Or should we have an option to make badly coded pages render as they do in Netscape Navigator 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x? Best add support for Opera-like rendering as well. And NCSA Mosaic. And any other browser you care to think of.

Supporting rendering options for all those browsers is going to be time consuming. Wouldn't it be great if there was one set of standards that we could just obey. Oh yeah, there is. The W3C standards. <http://www.w3.org/>

Early on in the development of Mozilla Seamonkey, the decision was made to obey Web standards as closely as possible. Support for non-standard 'extensions' - be they from Netscape, IE or any other browsers - was dropped. The idea being that it would make it easier for Web developers to code pages and accelerate the expansion of the Web into areas such as PDAs, set-top boxes and Internet fridges (think coding for IE on Windows and Mac is hard? Try Windows, Mac, PDAs, set-top boxes, Internet fridges...)

Even Microsoft acknowledges the importance of standards. Each version of IE is successfully more standards compliant. Eventually, IE's rendering engine(s) may be as standards compliant as Gecko. And then page authors will have to update their pages to standards whether they like it or not. So they may as well do so now. It's quite simple to make pages that conform to standards but still render well in IE and Navigator 1-4.

Supporting IE's 'standards' is impractical, likely to only have short term gains and could slow down the adoption of Web standards. It's just not worth it.

Non-NewZilla Alex

#37 Sorry for the double posts (n/t)

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 1st, 2001 11:53 AM

Reply to this message

N/T

#25 25% statistic

by tialaramex

Thursday May 31st, 2001 8:46 PM

Reply to this message

It's pointless to argue that Mozilla should render like IE

<http://www.zepler.org.uk/~njl195/>

See that in WinIE? It's broken. Should we make Mozilla screw that up too? No.

For the most part these days visible browser bugs turn out to be INVALIDs caused by site authors who write pages the way children learn to ride a bike, try, try, try until it seems to work.

That's not going to cut it, and XML is going to make it very obvious very soon who can read the score and who's just playing it by ear.

#31 Re: Jedbro

by macpeep

Friday June 1st, 2001 12:16 AM

Reply to this message

No, it's not an oxymoron. An oximoron is when contradicting terms are combined.

You say it does no good to say "Mozilla sucks". Well, it does equally little good to say "Mozilla rocks." In this case, nobody said either tho. Someone was complaining about specific things in Mozilla, so that these would be improved and THAT does a lot of good.

I too have so many problems with Mozilla rendering sites wrong / weirdly that I rather use IE. Like Nemo said, it's not about bad code or good code - it's about displaying as much of the web as possible the way the authors intended. If there's a missing closing table cell or row tag, the browser should try to fix. Same goes for all / most other type of bad HTML code. This isn't about some project at school where you can just say "well, correct the HTML!" - it's about the web with more than 100 million people and as many (or more) web pages. Nobody is going to start to rewrite their HTML because a browser with 0.5% market share can't draw them while all others can.

#28 Is Ben not a god or what? :P

by Nemo_NX

Thursday May 31st, 2001 9:42 PM

Reply to this message

From this <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22642>

------- Additional Comments From Ben Goodger 2001-05-31 19:26 -------

Pessimistically 0.9.3, as I already have a patch ----------------------------------------

This is when "never" becomes Mozilla .93. :)

I knew Ben wanted to get this thing in. :) So a patch exists, huh? Me waits and waits and waits and waits..... ect. =)