July 27th is Mozilla Community Day at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference!

Tuesday July 10th, 2001

If you are going to the O'Reilly Open Source Conference in San Diego this month, be sure to check out Mozilla Community Day, which is happening the last day of the conference. Mozilla Community Day is open to all, whether or not your are attending the Open Source Conference. To find out more, visit this page for info and a listing of some of the topics that will be discussed!

#1 Incorrect Spelling

by AlexBishop

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 1:56 PM

"July 27th is Mozilla Community Day at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference!"

...or "Mozilla Commnity Day" as the title of the information page says.


#3 Re: Incorrect Spelling

by Tanyel

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 1:59 PM

How did you post before me? Darn you.

#10 Re: Re: Incorrect Spelling

by AlexBishop

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 3:57 PM

When I first read the news report no one had posted any comments. It was several hours later before I posted my comment. You had plenty of time to get in before me!


#16 Re: Re: Re: Incorrect Spelling

by Tanyel

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 11:42 PM

There were no posts when I was reading the text. You must have posted while I was typing. I wonder why they still have not corrected the spelling.

#14 Re: Incorrect Spelling

by calroth

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 5:38 PM

When I first saw the page, I was going to file a bug on the spelling in the title... but I guess I didn't :-)

#2 Mozilla

by Tanyel

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 1:58 PM

Is this really worth all of those exclamation marks?

#4 See you all there!!

by castrojo

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 2:04 PM

Hope to have a good time meeting some of you! Sounds like we have some great discussions like we've been having here.

Then we can go bar hopping and beat up on IE users ... oops, was that out loud?


#5 Must convince Someone to pay for me.

by jelwell

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 3:18 PM

I say yay to free exposition passes, I say nay to 100$ Mozilla Community Day passes. :(

I hope more developers aren't poor like me. Joseph Elwell.

#8 Re: Must convince Someone to pay for me.

by castrojo

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 1:32 PM

I registered for the whole conference for free on the O'Reilly site. It's 'exhibit hall only', but hopefully I'll be able to get in on mozilla day. YOu should try it.

It's funny, because I've been trying to go as many OSS conferences as possible, but some are pushing $2000+ for attendance, funny, considering most of them give the software away.

Either way if we can't get in, we could surely hang outside in the 'free' areas and have a good time ...

#6 Marketing - whats that?

by TonyG

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 6:38 PM

I see there is a time slot for Marketing. Hmm, that should take all of five minutes to run through...

#7 Re: Marketing - whats that?

by Tanyel

Tuesday July 10th, 2001 8:32 PM

That is probably when they will discuss how to beg AOL for support.

#9 Mozilla can now be bundled with Windows XP

by Waldo

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 3:00 PM

Take a look at this story in today's NYTIMES:

It says that computer manufacturers can now bundle software that competes with Microsoft with Windows XP. (Although Microsoft's change in licensing is being touted as Microsoft's generosity, not doing this would have been illegal.)

I wonder if any major manufacturer will "see the light" and install Mozilla with -turbo over IE?

#11 Re: Mozilla can now be bundled with Windows XP

by AlexBishop

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 4:16 PM

I wanted to read the article, but I couldn't be bothered to register (why do the NY Times insist you register? All the newspapers here stopped doing that years ago). I figured others would feel the same way, so here's some articles about the licensing change from other sources:

ZDNet News:,4586,5094007,00.html


The Register:

Paul Thurrott's WinInfo:



#12 Re: Re: Mozilla can now be bundled with Windows XP

by AlexBishop

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 4:43 PM

Here's some more:

Microsoft Press Release:





BBC News:


#13 And finally...

by AlexBishop

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 4:59 PM

There's a bunch of articles from various sources in Yahoo! News Full Coverage:


#17 There is a problem.

by Tanyel

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 11:48 PM

If the manufacturers do that then they will be decreasing their computers' available memory without adding any apparent functionality. Unless Mozilla does something spectacular, it will only make the computer seem slower.

#18 Too little, too late

by dave532

Thursday July 12th, 2001 3:04 AM

However great Mozilla is (and I use it all the time on all the platforms it supports because I prefer it over most browsers) it's still not going to benefit Mozilla very much. Most PC makers will just stick with the default browser unless they have a vested interest in promoting Netscape or Mozilla, I suppose there may be a market for some PC makers to create a custom version of Mozilla that fits their corporate branding, but if XP is themeable (I'm sure I've read that somewhere) they're more likely just to theme the Windows desktop rather than use a Mozilla based solution.

This is good news for consumers though, if for some strange reason I decide to buy a copy of XP, the first thing I'll do is uninstall IE, unfortunately I've gotta feeling it's only going to be the front end that's going to be deleted, many applications rely on the IE rendering engine I doubt you'll be able to remove that, therefore most of IE will still be preloaded on startup, therefore using Mozilla with the -turbo option will mean effectively you have two browsers in memory.

With the Mozilla ActiveX control it should be possible with a little modification to make applications that rely on IE to use the Mozilla rendering engine instead, it would be great to see a moz based desktop with IE not loaded at all, but that's probably a while off.

#22 Re: Too little, too late

by AlexBishop

Thursday July 12th, 2001 1:00 PM

"Most PC makers will just stick with the default browser unless they have a vested interest in promoting Netscape or Mozilla"

According to some news reports, AOL is planning to deal directly with OEMs to get AOL software preloaded on systems, as it won't be bundled with Windows XP. Perhaps when doing these deals AOL could make OEMs an offer they can't refuse to install Netscape 6.1 as well. Hopefully, the browser should be ready by then: Windows XP will be distributed to OEMs for installing on systems from August onwards.


#23 Re: Re: Too little, too late

by AlexBishop

Thursday July 12th, 2001 3:43 PM

Look at Bugzilla bug 90502 and note the line that says "This was tested on a Compaq machine that will ship with Netscape 6."

So it looks like a Mozilla-based browser will be shipping on at least one Windows PC model (though I expect IE will still be there).


#24 Re: Re: Re: Too little, too late

by dave532

Thursday July 12th, 2001 6:48 PM

Well I'd be glad if I was proved wrong and a lot of OEMs shipped a mozilla based browser of some form or the other even if it was just as a second choice to IE hidden away in the menus somewhere.

Reading that bug report it gives the impression that Netscape and Compaq have come to some deal about distributing the browser and are testing to make sure it works well as the default browser, this can only be a good sign.

#25 Compaq has had netscape for a while

by MikeYoung

Friday July 13th, 2001 12:28 AM

I have set up a few compaq computers, and can say that the "compaq internet connection wizard" asks in the beginning if you want to use IE or NS. It doesn't surprize me that Compaq plans to include NS6.1 in their computers since thy've had NS4 in there for a while.

#26 Re: Re: Re: Too little, too late

by fab

Friday July 13th, 2001 3:38 AM

Heh the bug is Netscape confidential. Poot. For once there's a good news and they hide it. :-P

#29 Re: Re: Re: Re: Too little, too late

by dave532

Friday July 13th, 2001 5:36 AM

You'd think by now Netscape employees would know that they should file Netscape only bugs in bugscape rather than bugzilla. Well to be honest it's not technically a Netscape only bug as the same thing will happen in Mozilla but some of the stuff mentioned about Compaq may be internal only info at the moment.

#30 Re: Re: Re: Too little, too late

by macpeep

Friday July 13th, 2001 6:35 AM

"You are not authorized to access bug #90502. To see this bug, you must first log in to an account with the appropriate permissions."

Heh. Boys and girls, this is open source.

#34 Bug 90502 can no longer be viewed by mere mortals

by AlexBishop

Friday July 13th, 2001 1:14 PM

It seems that someone decided that we shouldn't be able to see bug 90502.

Basically, it said that there was a problem when you set Netscape 6 as the default Web browser and mail client on Windows XP. Windows XP places shortcuts to your default Web browser an mail client at the top of the Start menu - screenshot . The problem was that Netscape 6 could be set as the default browser but couldn't be successfully set as the default mail client. The sentence that is probably responsible for you and I not being able to see the bug was "This was tested on a Compaq computer that will ship with Netscape 6." (or something along those lines). Note that it just said Netscape 6 (not 6.1), but I imagine it must mean 6.1 as it refers to Windows XP, which ships on October 25th (6.1 will surely be ready by then).

Someone did ask (in the bug) if it should be filed in Bugscape rather than Bugzilla (Bugscape is for Netscape-only bugs), but presumably this problem will also occur with Mozilla. It is a bit of a shame because someone who doesn't have access to the bug may know how to fix it. Apart from bugs about proprietary products, the only other bugs I've seen that have been restricted are security ones (you don't want to advertise exploits).


#37 Re: Bug 90502 can no longer be viewed by mere mortals

by Waldo

Friday July 13th, 2001 3:53 PM

this is pretty interesting ;) It seems to imply that Compaq will be putting mozilla in a prominent position.

I don't know why they'd want to keep this a secret, but maybe they have their reasons.. heheh.

#40 Re: Re: Bug 90502 can no longer be viewed by mere

by AlexBishop

Friday July 13th, 2001 7:30 PM

I once read a bug that had been restricted for a while because it mentioned Netscape 6.5. The restriction was lifted because Netscape 6.5 was mentioned in many other bugs and even the SmartUpdate FAQ (it's at but the reference has now been removed). I guess Netscape want to keep their plans confidential just in case - I think non-disclosure contracts are standard.


#54 Re: Bug 90502 can no longer be viewed by mere mort

by asa

Monday July 16th, 2001 12:17 PM

It mentioned Netscape confidential information and contained no new information pertaining to Mozilla that wasn't already reported as the earlier bug 90071. It has been marked a duplicate of bug


#106 Re: Re: Too little, too late

by AlexBishop

Thursday July 26th, 2001 7:57 PM

Have a look at this article from 'The Washington Post':

It seems that AOL are going to make deals with OEMs to have AOL's software (not just the online service but other products as well) promoted as heavily - or even more heavily - than Microsoft's in Windows XP. The OEM will receive $35 each time a user signs up with AOL as a reward for conspiring in this plan. The article specifically mentions how "AOL also is seeking to give an advantage to Netscape, its own Web browser" (I don't like the reference to Netscape belonging to AOL. I know it's true but you're going to get new users thinking that AOL always owned Netscape and that AOL had the foresight to pioneer Web browsers or, even worse, that IE was always dominant). I presume that the version of Netscape will be 6.1.

Microsoft says that the action is "completely anti-consumer" and will "eliminate consumer choice", which I find rather amusing coming from a company that's trying to force its Web browser/email client/instant messenger/media player/digital photography software/Web portal/ISP/unified login/vision of a .NET-powered future onto everyone.

Some groups have said this agreement is anticompetitive, but I'm not too sure of the legal status of this. Using a monopoly in one area (say, operating systems) to gain a monopoly in another (say, Web browsers, email clients, instant messaging, digital media, digital photography, Web portals, Internet access, unified login services or the entire future in general) is, I believe, anticompetitive and illegal under US law. However, I'm not sure that using vast amounts of money to open up new distribution channels is. On the other hand, it could be argued that AOL is paying OEMs to put a competitor's products at a disadvantage, which looks like less stable ground. Anyway, to me AOL doesn't really seem to be planning anything that Microsoft isn't already doing. And their motive doesn't really seem to be to gain new markets (as it was for Microsoft), but rather to protect existing ones (though Microsoft has shown that it's possible to break the law doing this). More levelling the playing field, if you will.

However, if it isn't anticompetitve, it certainly looks damn annoying. The article speaks of pop-ups that will keep on appearing, you know, just to remind you how great AOL is.

Basically, the point I want to make is that it looks like PCs could be shipped that are set up so that Netscape 6, a Mozilla-based browser, is easier to access than IE. Which can only be a good thing.

Of course this is all speculation from AOL internal memos, so it's likely that not all the proposals will be implemented.


#46 Not if IE's still pre-loaded

by ryampolsky

Saturday July 14th, 2001 1:27 PM

My reading of the NYT article left me pretty sure MS wasn't offering to actually unbold IE from the OS. Just to let you remove the ICON.

If that's the case, it's a complete sham. Mozilla, nice as it is, is still slow on a 64MB machine and will barely run in 32MB. Processor speed is less of an issue, so a good part of this has to be the fact that IE's in there taking up who knows how much memory.

I'm sure MS will insist that they can't completely remove IE without damaging the OS - the help system and file browser have been nominally tied to IE expressly to give them this fig leaf. Still, there's no reason in hell that IE needs to be always pre-loaded if the user doesn't ask for it. That's a simple minimum for compliance with the court's finding.

Plus, this is only being offered for XP! So you have to go out and BUY A NEW OS just to get rid of the IE application they illegally forced on you in the last several versions! Uh-Uh. They should have to release service packs for Win95-2K that untangle the DLL's to allow the OS to run with no trace of IE.

Then they can think about releasing XP.

#55 Re: Not if IE's still pre-loaded

by tny

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 8:20 AM

Actually, I believe it's only for manufacturers on preinstalled new systems with XP. Which obviously will not be 32MB (and I would hope not 64MB) systems. If Netscape can convince a few hardware manufacturers to put Netscape 6.x on as the default web and mail clients on their new systems, that will be great. It might finally lead to some real competition!

Yeah, IE will still probably be preloaded: but if there's no "get on the internet" button that's tied to IE, and if AOL is tied to NS6, the entry-level users won't realize that, and they will never have that stage of thinking that Microsoft runs the Internet.

#15 url bar

by arielb

Wednesday July 11th, 2001 10:36 PM

ok this is a little off-topic but that stupid urlbar drop down (you know that down arrow on the right) bug is fixed in the July 11 nightly build. yay!

#20 Re: url bar

by WillyWonka

Thursday July 12th, 2001 9:36 AM

It wasn't really fixed. It's just that the cause of the problem was backed out. They are currently trying to figure out what the hell wen't wrong. :)

#19 build bar

by caseyperkins

Thursday July 12th, 2001 9:11 AM

With respect and appreciation for Asa's past efforts, can we please get someone else to maintain the build bar? It's pretty useless without being updated regularly.

#21 Re: build bar

by joschi

Thursday July 12th, 2001 11:51 AM

I think there needs to be a more community oriented build bar somewhere where each nightly is rated by vote on several catagories: Stability, Cool New Features, Essential Bug Fixes, and maybe a couple more. But then again, I've been saying this for a month or too and havn't gotten around to implementing it yet... I am a java servlet programmer and would most likely do it that way, but I would like it to run on a big site like, which I'm not sure uses servlets. Can someone in the know at say if there are plans along these lines?

#27 Re: Re: build bar

by macpeep

Friday July 13th, 2001 5:22 AM

The build bar could be totally re-done and even be hosted on another site - possibly embedded with an iframe or simply linked to. I'd like to see a "community driven" one too. Basically rating various components (like the ones you mentioned) and/or overall build quality but also there could be a list of fixed bugs, which could be automatically updated.

While I now work in the game industry, I've done CGI (in C++, Pascal, Perl and Java) coding for a living for several years in the past and volunteer to code this. If we had a server to run it on, I'm sure me and joschi would get something together in no time!

#32 MozillaZine server...

by rgelb

Friday July 13th, 2001 11:09 AM

is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.4 OpenSSL/0.9.5a FrontPage/ PHP/4.0.0 on Linux.

So I am sure whoever is in charge can simply copy some PHP code from somewhere to do what is necessary.

#39 no php for me :)

by joschi

Friday July 13th, 2001 5:56 PM

Well you are on you own with this then macpeep, I don't know any php at all... but if you do decide to do this you will be the most popular person on mozillazine :)

#43 Re: no php for me :)

by macpeep

Saturday July 14th, 2001 4:05 AM

Yeah, I don't know any PHP either. Maybe it could be hosted somewhere else tho..

#50 Re: php for me :)

by thelem

Sunday July 15th, 2001 3:30 PM

I do know PHP, but I have tried helping MozillaZine before and not got very far. Once all they had to do was provide a link to a mozillazine branded page and they didn't do it.

#51 a new site for mozilla advocacy

by caseyperkins

Monday July 16th, 2001 8:26 AM

Hearing all this makes me think we need a new site for Mozilla advocacy - one that is kept up-to-date and that, in the spirit of open source/free software, is more ready to accept contributions to the effort. Perhaps Mozillazine has outlived its usefulness. I'd volunteer to host the site, but I fear that the bandwidth requirements would be too excessive. Anybody have any idea how much bandwidth a site like this might use up in a month?

#52 Re: Re: Personal toolbar context menus

by dave532

Monday July 16th, 2001 11:06 AM

I don't think there's anything wrong with the news on this site, all the most important things are always covered, it's a shame we can't have something new every day on this site but as it's a site about mozilla it doesn't exactly have the broad range of topics that sites like slashdot can cover.

The areas of the site that do need an overhaul (or removed - as it looks bad on behalf of the mozilla effort) are the screenshots or the fetch builds pages (I think the fetchbuilds page can be removed now as it basically dates back to the days before produced binaries and people needed directed towards other builds).

As also mentioned the buildbar needs updating frequently, when Asa has the time to update the buildbar I doubt anyone could beat the comments that Asa provide (although the ability to add personal comments to the buildbar is a great idea). What I'd like to see is a buildbar that Asa can add comments on the builds as usual, but other people can also add their comments and perhaps give the builds a rating, logged in users could have a preference set whether they want to see all comments or just Asa's and the general comments will come in useful when Asa has no time.

#53 *sigh*

by dave532

Monday July 16th, 2001 11:29 AM

I have to remember that the password manager fills in the title field :)

#28 Re: build bar

by calroth

Friday July 13th, 2001 5:34 AM

It's somewhat discouraging to see on the status update page, "Visit MozillaZine for updates during the week" and then note that the status update gets updated more frequently than the build bar does ;-)

I run Mozilla a lot, build it every day I can, but I can never figure out what's changed and what cool things to look out for, I need it spelt out for me :-)

#31 Re: Re: build bar

by saberunit02

Friday July 13th, 2001 7:23 AM

I usually go to and click "new checkins" to see what's been fixed.

#41 Screenshots - I tried

by MikeYoung

Friday July 13th, 2001 8:40 PM

I sent in some screenshots (basically the exact same ones we have already but with the new skin and showing off a few new features) around March. they never got in, and I don't know whether they ever were recieved. I offered to keep the screenshots page up to date as well. (I know I can hit PrtScn and Paste into Photoshop!)


by macpeep

Friday July 13th, 2001 3:55 PM

Another thing which isn't QUITE up to date is the screenshot page. I mean, we missed a whole Modern theme for which there's not a single screenshot there to show the history and how far we've come! If someone not familiar to Mozilla would go and look on the screenshots page, they would probably run away terrified and never wanting to come back again. We need to get something more recent up there!

#42 Re: Fetch Builds

by WillyWonka

Friday July 13th, 2001 9:26 PM

What about the fetch builds page?

Milestone Seventeen is the latest one listed there. (I just use the latest link, but some people might wanna check out the stable versions)

#44 Bit of a Shame Really

by TonyG

Saturday July 14th, 2001 11:36 AM

Tis a shame the site isn't as updated that often. Obviously its down to workload for Chris, Asa and everyone else. Its part of the reason Why people still read MozillaQuest I think. There is so little information on Mozilla or Netscape that is updated on anything like a daily basis that folks will take it anywhere they can get it.

There is plenty going on in the newsgroupsa nd IRC channels - its just not appearing on this site.

Maybe Mitchell Baker can be attacked - ermm I mean - asked about this during the 2 minute Advocacy session at the O'Reilly conference.

I would gladly help out on the site in anyway I can. I have toyed with doing some sort of for a while but would rather see Mozillazine remain as the centre of the universe. Content is king as they say.

I am an ASP developer(among other things) and again, am happy to help out...

Maybe we can all design a build bar system, then I can code it in ASP and chuck it on a server ...

#47 Re: build bar -- on usenet?

by fat_cow

Saturday July 14th, 2001 6:17 PM

Hey people.

Why don't we use usenet? It's not like there is not a group already there for this purpose? netscape.public.mozilla.builds

#67 Re: build bar

by schapel

Thursday July 19th, 2001 12:34 PM

I see the build bar has been updated the last few days. As it says, the builds for the 16th and 18th are excellent. If you haven't downloaded a new version in the past week or so, grab one of them! You'll like it!

#98 MozillaZine Update

by kerz

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 1:08 PM

Thought I'd post a quick responce to all of this. Lots of good feedback. The main issue is time, in that many of us don't have much of it. I would love to hand over all of the subsections of the site to someone. All you have to do is update the pages and send them to me, and I'll post them.

News has been slow of late, meaning less news to post. To combat this, we are working on getting a forum system up so that folks can create their own topics. Along with that, if you see or hear of news you think would be interesting to the community, feel free to submit it - we'd love to post it.

With the build bar, Asa also gets quite busy with his real job. Feel free to poke him on irc to update it if it hasn't been. He told me he got out of the groove for a while, but is getting back in it now. I know he'd love input daily as to what's going on, and the best place to send that to him is on irc.

Again, thanks for the support, and we hope we can get things moving again here soon, as soon as you know what comes out.

Jason - mozAdmin2

#33 completely off topic

by caseyperkins

Friday July 13th, 2001 12:40 PM

Does anybody know how to make text input boxes and submit buttons smaller on a web page in Mozilla and IE? I remember seeing smaller than normal boxes in Netscape 4, but don't know how to do that with the latest browsers. What good is having smaller text if your form elements are huge by comparison? Thanks.

Casey Perkins

#35 Re: completely off topic

by Rave

Friday July 13th, 2001 3:39 PM

try this one <input type="text" value="SEARCH" size="7" maxlength="40" style="font-size: 10px;" >

should work on Moz, IE and NS4

#36 Re: Re: completely off topic

by caseyperkins

Friday July 13th, 2001 3:42 PM

Now why didn't think of that? Thanks, Rave, it worked like a charm.


#45 Another small hack for NS4

by TonyG

Saturday July 14th, 2001 1:09 PM

You can also affect the size of the text field in NS4 by wrapping it in a <font> tag and setting its size attribute. This gives you a bit more control over it.

#48 Re: Another small hack for NS4

by basic

Sunday July 15th, 2001 12:08 PM

don't think moz would handle that though

#49 Re: Re: Another small hack for NS4

by TonyG

Sunday July 15th, 2001 2:45 PM

Doesn't have to. Moz uses the CSS style like IE

#56 Yay! Bug 55694 is fixed

by TonyG

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 12:25 PM

Waiting for that one for ages...

#57 Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by TonyG

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 12:45 PM

Anyone care to offer a second opinion? the test page is

I think that the top table in the example should not stretch all the way across to the right hand side. It should allow the same amount of default margin as the example below it...

I guess this means the bug needs reopened. Is that the right thing to do?

#63 Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by mielke

Thursday July 19th, 2001 8:23 AM

file a new one please, because the remaining issue is a problem with the width of absolute elements at all and has nothing to do with tables you should see something similiar also with div's, but this is biased oppinion :-)

#68 Re: Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by TonyG

Thursday July 19th, 2001 1:31 PM

OK. Before I file a new bug, do you mind checking to see if my test case is acceptable.

#69 Re: Re: Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by mielke

Thursday July 19th, 2001 1:53 PM

GO, assign it to attinasi or waterson

#70 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by TonyG

Thursday July 19th, 2001 2:37 PM

Hmmm.. Upon searching through Bugzilla a bit longer, I found Bug 51230. This APPEARS to be the same issue.

#74 Make a comment

by MikeYoung

Friday July 20th, 2001 8:16 PM

I would definately comment on that bug and submit your testcase. I'm not sure whether the issues are the same, but they sound the same.

I'ts always good to get more eyes on a bug. Besides 51230 hasn't been looked at since march, and they were planning on marking it invalid then.

#75 Re: Re: Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by stfh

Friday July 20th, 2001 9:44 PM

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you submitted this bug it would get marked invalid. If you look at the definition of containing block in the CSS2 spec you will see that when you absolutely position a child of the body, its containing block becomes not the body but the viewport itself (unless the body itself is positioned). Therefore width:100% refers to the width of the viewport. But since you don't specify left or top, its initial position is where it would normally fall in the page flow (inside the body margin). So your paragraph element has an initial left and top equal to the body margin, and a width equal to the viewport width, so it extends to the right of the viewport the same distance as the body's left margin.

Does this make sense? Does anyone else have a different interpretation of the spec?

#76 Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by TonyG

Saturday July 21st, 2001 3:08 AM

DAmn. I got up with a hangover and read this. Naturally it all made sense :)

I concur. Upon giving the spec my complete attention, I believe that the test case I submitted earlier is in fact a demonstration of the correct action.

The Spec at 10.1.4 says:

<i>If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' other than 'static', in the following way:

1. In the case that the ancestor is block-level, the containing block is formed by the padding edge of the ancestor.M</i>

This means if I was to add style='position:relative' to the the body tag, I would get the behaviour I expected. This is indeed the case as this demo shows

In that case, should 51230 be invalid?

#77 Re: Hmmm.. maybe Not...

by stfh

Saturday July 21st, 2001 9:55 AM

>In that case, should 51230 be invalid?

Yes, I think it's definitely invalid, but for different reasons. First of all, I think it's unclear what exactly the CSS2 spec means by "absolutely positioned non-replaced elements" vs. "absolutely positioned replaced elements". I think the former might refer to position:relative and the latter position:absolute and position:fixed. If this is the case, then the testcase attached to that bug displays the correct behavior.

#58 Scrollbars

by WillyWonka

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 1:44 PM

Hey, when did they add the "snap when you move the mouse too far off the scroll bar"?

It's damn annoying and I liked the fact mozilla didn't do it. ARGH!

#59 Re: Scrollbars

by theuiguy

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 2:53 PM

Do you mean the click and drag scrollbar thumb down, but you must stay within x pixels of the scrollbar or it snaps back where you were? They "fixed" that? What build? That's horrible. Log a new bug against it. I've been loving that that hasn't happened in Mozilla.

#60 Related bug numbers

by theuiguy

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 3:05 PM dragging thumb away from scrollbar should cancel scrolling (This looks like the original bug - fixed on 7/14) dragging thumb away from scrollbar shouldn't cancel scrolling on unix (I think this needs to be a pref even on Windows/Mac).

#64 Fixed already in 7/19 builds!

by theuiguy

Thursday July 19th, 2001 11:04 AM Awesome! Thanks, Tor.

Add user_pref("slider.snapMultiplier", 0); to prefs.js in your user profile directory and it will go back to the old behavior we knew and loved of no snapping at all.

Or adjust the snap size to suit your preference. It's a muliplier to the width of the vertical scrollbar (or height of the horizontal scrollbar).

#65 But 7/19 are crashing

by theuiguy

Thursday July 19th, 2001 11:19 AM

I've had it crash quite frequently on me doing nothing in particular. :-( Bugs are being logged. Here's one of them:

#73 Re: But 7/19 are crashing

by schapel

Friday July 20th, 2001 10:16 AM

The crasher has been fixed -- download the latest build or the fixed 7/19 build pointed to in the "READ MORE" link on the build bar.

#61 Re: Scrollbars

by rkl

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 3:31 PM

This "snapback" behaviour in Windows is actually quite disgraceful - I can't believe *anyone in the universe* finds it useful ! When I scroll up/down in Windows, my mouse often drifts to the left or right and this "snapback" behaviour kicks in and it's loathsome to the nth degree. It's what makes scrolling in any app in Windows an absolute nightmare (I've grumbled about this to people for years, but people think it's "normal" behaviour !).

What's surprising is that this was even filed as "bug" (it's more like an "emulate an extremely bad feature of windows" request for downgrade :-) ). Even worse too that it's been implemented cross-platform, causing much hair-pulling amongst Mac and UNIX users, whose native scrollbars don't have the ludicrous "snapback" feature.

I feel a vote in Bugzilla coming on (I'd like it disabled by default on *all* platforms when they add that prefs option to it - it's "wrong" to do it on windows, particularly as native scrollbars aren't used anyway).

#62 Re: Re: Scrollbars

by strauss

Wednesday July 18th, 2001 7:06 PM

Um, yes, Mac native scrollbars do snap back if you go outside the gutter, which is very wide -- about two fingers. I just tried it on the Finder.

I think this behavior is the very least of Mozilla's UI problems, if it's a problem at all.

#71 Re: Re: Scrollbars

by asa

Friday July 20th, 2001 2:35 AM

it's not that bad. if you move out of the scroll area and it snaps back to the original page position just keep the click held down and move back into the scroll area. see? and if that's not good enough then you can set a pref in Mozilla (that's more freedom than a lot of other apps give you) to enable or disable and set the size of the scroll area to whatever you want it to be. in my build today this particular behavior matches almost every other app on each of my machines (2 mac, 3 win32, and 1 linux)

don't be so quick to yell "fire" when the only reason this even came up here was that Mozilla developers were in the process of making it better, more consistent with OS and more user configurable.


#66 Re: Scrollbars

by macpeep

Thursday July 19th, 2001 11:20 AM

Speaking of scrollbars.. There's a pretty ugly bug caused by rounding errors in some internal coordinate -> pixel conversion somewhere, that is causing this black line in scrollbars and things like table column headers (in the mail thread pane for example) to have different spacings. Bug #56876... It's been in Mozilla since as long as I can remember and there's still no sign of it being fixed anytime in the near future. :/

#72 Re: Re: Scrollbars

by basic

Friday July 20th, 2001 2:46 AM

could you try tracing where the code for this stuff is? See bug 29949 for some hints.

#78 Window Focus

by WillyWonka

Saturday July 21st, 2001 10:29 AM

Bug has been fixed.

No more windows coming to the front! Woo Hoo! Way to go Saari, Brian and anyone else who worked on the bug! Keep up the great work.

#79 -turbo SysTray Icon

by jcf76

Sunday July 22nd, 2001 1:24 PM

All right, I'm running Moz in -turbo mode and it's going well (it gives me that systray icon now so I can tell where my free memory's going :) My problem is: if I have no windows open I have to press CTRL-ALT-DEL to kill Moz completely (like when I want to play a game) or start up a new browser window and then quit. Does anyone know if there is a plan to make a small context menu for that systray icon? All it would really need is "Launch Mozilla" and "Exit Mozilla" IMHO.

#80 Re: -turbo SysTray Icon

by astrosmash

Sunday July 22nd, 2001 1:53 PM

There already is a context menu on the tray icon, always was -- it lets you select 'Exit' when no Mozilla windows are open, which ends the Mozilla process.

#81 Re: -turbo SysTray Icon

by jcf76

Sunday July 22nd, 2001 5:13 PM

That's weird -- right-clicking on it does nothing on my machine :/ Guess I should download a newer nightly than the 19th's.

#82 Re: Re: -turbo SysTray Icon

by Tanyel

Sunday July 22nd, 2001 6:13 PM

Mine was downloaded yesterday and that still does not work. Also, selecting "Exit" from the menu does not unload the preloader. Were you talking about something else?

#83 re: context menu

by SbooX

Sunday July 22nd, 2001 8:25 PM

no context menu for me either on 2001072208. double clicking it does open a mozilla window if none are open though. Personally, I'd like to see a context menu have open, exit (killing the mozilla -turbo process), and a way to selectable list of each of the open mozilla windows.

#84 Here's the bug

by astrosmash

Sunday July 22nd, 2001 10:40 PM

bug 90524

It only affects Win9x...

#85 Re: Here's the bug

by jcf76

Monday July 23rd, 2001 5:38 AM

Thanks for doing the digging, astro. Now us Win users just have to wait for the fix to stop crashing things :)

#104 Bug fix landed 2001072503 n/t

by johnlar

Wednesday July 25th, 2001 10:29 AM


#103 context menu: open

by feepcreature

Wednesday July 25th, 2001 9:40 AM

Should that be Open Browser, Open Mail (News) Client, and Open (IRC) Chat, rather than simply "open"?

-- feeping creaturism

#105 hmmm

by SbooX

Wednesday July 25th, 2001 6:43 PM

hmmmm... ok, that sounds better. even better would be to allow you to customize what shows up in that context menu through the preferences.

#86 .

by MenaX

Monday July 23rd, 2001 3:58 PM


#87 Re: .

by jcf76

Monday July 23rd, 2001 7:02 PM


#88 Re: Re: .

by Tanyel

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 12:55 AM


#90 Just checking my signup worked (nt)

by MenaX

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 4:49 AM


#89 MozForums ?

by shin

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 2:50 AM

Since we're always going off-topic due to the lack of general Mozilla forums, I've been thinking about opening some space on my site for Mozilla forums. There'd be forums for comments on nightly builds & releases, bugs, a place for international users (multilanguages... but would require mods who speak the languages).

Are there already such forums ?

If not, who would go for this idea ?

#91 Re: MozForums ?

by MenaX

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 4:56 AM

I think this has been requested of mozillazine quite a few times. I'm sure if you publicise it well then the forums should be successfull. It would also give us people with no access to IRC the chance to get some info/help when we need it.

#92 Re: Re: MozForums ?

by tny

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 7:07 AM

Keep in mind, though, that you might be adding to the burden of the Moz developers if you do so - unless you commit yourself to posting *every* bug mentioned in the forum on Bugzilla.

#96 Re: MozForums ?

by kerz

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 12:57 PM

We are all over this, just to let you know. Things have been rather slow news-wise, and we are working on getting some basic forums up, so you folks don't have to go off topic in forums. Feel free to open your own, but I just wanted to pass along the update that we are working on it.

Jason - MZAdmin2

#102 then I shall wait

by shin

Wednesday July 25th, 2001 9:07 AM

Then I shall wait for your update. No point in having ten thousands sites to post opinions on, so if there'll be a forum here, no need to set one elsewhere. :)

#99 Re: MozForums ?

by broken

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 2:03 PM

I suggested the same thing using Delphi forums some time ago, which IMHO have a nice interface. The idea was to have sections to talk about nightly builds, bugs and workarounds, improvements, general Mozilla advocacy, and so on, but it was ignored. I still think it's a good idea... Hope your proposal has better luck.

#100 Re: MozForums ?

by DavidGerard

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 8:00 PM

Something based on Scoop would be particularly good for this - submissions are moderated by registered users. You can see how the system works at Kuro5hin .

#101 Re: Re: MozForums ?

by castrojo

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 9:42 PM

I second the vote for scoop. It rocks. User submitted articles and tons and tons of options. I am not a programmer, but imagine a scoop-based mozillaZine that directly ties into bugzilla so that people can comment on bugs, etc. etc. without clogging up bugzilla itself.... hmmm .... hmmm ....

#93 OT: Any chance the roadmap gets updated soon?

by eiseli

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 11:45 AM could need an update. Where are we now? where are we going? When are the next milestones planned? 1.0?

#94 Re: OT: Any chance the roadmap gets updated soon?

by WillyWonka

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 11:52 AM

There is going to be at least a 0.9.4 as I've had a couple bugs bumpped to that milestone. 0.9.3 seems to be close to release.

#95 Re: OT: Any chance the roadmap gets updated soon?

by schapel

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 12:25 PM

There's very little updating to do on the roadmap. The X in the diagram is basically where we are now, between 0.9.2 and 0.9.3. Mozilla 0.9.3 is scheduled to be frozen on July 25, as the table says. Mozilla 0.9.5 is a good guess for which version will become Mozilla 1.0.

Rather than be concerned with how the Roadmap looks, grab the latest nightly and try it out That will be more useful to the Mozilla project.

#97 Re: OT: Any chance the roadmap gets updated soon?

by kerz

Tuesday July 24th, 2001 12:58 PM

I've heard that an update is coming quite soon. Stay tuned.

#107 Questions About Mojo

by AlexBishop

Thursday July 26th, 2001 9:05 PM

I've noticed that on and Bugzilla, there are several references to "Mojo". I've been wondering what it signifies. Most of the occurences of "Mojo" seem to be from documents or Bugzilla comments posted by Netscape engineers, so my best bet is that "Mojo" is a codename for a Netscape release, possibly Netscape 6.1.

More recently, I've also seen mentions of "eMojo" which appears to be a different release (assuming that "Mojo" is a release), somehow related to Mozilla 0.9.4.

Can anyone shed any light on the subject?


#108 Re: Questions About Mojo

by johnlar

Friday July 27th, 2001 10:37 AM

Searching bugzilla, only occurances of "Mojo" I find are always in Macintosh only bugs. And they do refer to a "Mojo Beta", so its probably a beta to test something special for Macintosh. Oh BTW on another note, directory 6.1 seems to have appeared in netscape's ftp site :)

#109 Re: Re: Questions About Mojo

by TommyBee

Friday July 27th, 2001 12:08 PM

Perhaps Mojo will be the Netscape 6.x beta for Mac OS X? I've seen references to a beta release for OS X, so perhaps these are references to that. I hope we'll see this soon so my uncle who recently installed X on his computer can have a Netscape-branded browser. (I've installed two Mozilla branch builds thus far, but I think an actual Netscape release would sit better with him.)

I too noticed the 6.1 directory just a few moments ago (I was hoping to be the first to post about it here ;-) ). It will be so nice to be able to reap the benefits of the 0.9.2 fixes in the commercial version.

#110 Re: Re: Questions About Mojo

by AlexBishop

Friday July 27th, 2001 5:15 PM

I searched Bugzilla for "mojo" but found bugs for all platforms. Many specs mention Mojo too (for example the Search and Navigation spec ), so I don't think it's Mac-only.

I'm still unsure about eMojo, which I'm almost certain is a Netscape-branded 0.9.4 release. I understand that 6.1 will be based on, so I can't understand why there would be two releases so close together. I thought eMojo might be a Netscape-branded Fizzilla or possibly some sort of embeddable version (that would explain the 'e'), but I read a Windows-specific bug that an engineer said has to be fixed for eMojo, so I'm not really sure. I wonder if maybe will be 6.1PR2 and 0.9.4 will be 6.1 final. Or maybe 0.9.4 will be 6.11. I'm getting really confused now ;-).


#111 Re: Re: Re: Questions About Mojo

by AlexBishop

Saturday July 28th, 2001 11:01 AM

A lot of 1.0-targetted bugs are now being retargetted to 0.9.4, presumably so they're ready in time for eMojo.


#113 Re: Questions About Mojo

by AlexBishop

Monday August 6th, 2001 3:41 PM

I'm not expecting anyone to still be reading this discussion, but for historical purposes I noticed that TonyG asked what eMojo is on the Netscape 6 Windows newsgroup. According to Jay Garcia, it's "Purportedly the Enterprise version of 6.1 that is shipped to Corporate users."


#112 so....

by strauss

Saturday July 28th, 2001 7:53 PM

How was Mozilla Community Day?