MozillaZine

Mozilla 0.9.8 Released

Monday February 4th, 2002

Mozilla.org today released Milestone 0.9.8 of Mozilla. This release includes the new OS rendered classic theme on Mac OS X and Windows XP, a partial rewrite of the addressbook adding a quicksearch and additional printing enhancements, support for MNG animations, DOM Inspector on the Mac, dynamic theme switching, inline CSS support in composer, and so much more. You can check out the release notes for more information on what's changed and other issues.

Builds are available on mozilla.org's releases page, or on the FTP Server.

With 0.9.8 released, attention turns to 0.9.9, which many believe to be the last milestone prior to 1.0.


#1 Mozillazine sidebar users get news from the future

by arsa

Monday February 4th, 2002 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

Soooo cool :))

#162 Could someone update the roadmap-document..

by tslukka

Sunday February 10th, 2002 2:56 AM

Reply to this message

I mean the Roadmap in <http://www.mozilla.org.> It still lists Mozilla 0.9.7 as latest release and the three-management graph is somewhat outdated. I know this is not the most important thing to remember when making new releases, but it should still be done. And big Thanks for the whole Mozilla team!

#168 Re: Could someone update the roadmap-document..

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday February 10th, 2002 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

working on it. Add 5 weeks to the last freeze point and you know the next freeze point.

--Asa

#171 Could someone update the roadmap-document..

by tslukka

Sunday February 10th, 2002 12:12 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks. Maybe it is just me, but I think it is nice to see the plans on the 'paper'. And on these days many new people are reading about Mozilla and other open source projects, so it is important to keep the information up2date.

#2 .9.8 is sweet

by tono

Monday February 4th, 2002 9:21 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you everyone for making this an amazingly good release, even if it was a bit late. It's very very nice.

#8 Re: What is so native?

by wtmcgee

Monday February 4th, 2002 10:46 PM

Reply to this message

late or not - so far this is a tremendous release - it 'feels' very fast so far, and i'll keep hammering away on this thing till i dig up some bugs :)

#3 .png support

by archen

Monday February 4th, 2002 9:39 PM

Reply to this message

Does Mozilla support transparency for the .png format yet? I gather it doesn't support alpha transperency at all, but I was just wondering how this was all comming along.

#4 Re: .png support

by bzbarsky

Monday February 4th, 2002 9:49 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has supported PNG 8-bit alpha channels for a long while now...

#22 Mozilla has the best png support of all browsers

by arsa

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 7:30 AM

Reply to this message

#41 Support was buggy for ages

by thelem

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 12:40 PM

Reply to this message

Back around M17 time there was a bug where 1-bit transparency didn't work on anything other than a white background (it would get some weird colour instead), maybe you are thinking of this? AFAIK PNG support has been pretty much fine since then.

#115 Re: Support was buggy for ages

by MozillaUser

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 5:29 PM

Reply to this message

Alpha support in png was buggy all the way up to somewhere around 0.9.1 or 0.9.2 when the new imglib2 landed.

#5 Re: .png support

by bzbarsky

Monday February 4th, 2002 10:07 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has supported PNG 8-bit alpha channels for a long while now...

#138 Re: .png support

by unbekannt

Thursday February 7th, 2002 4:12 PM

Reply to this message

Under MacOS X, Mozilla always wants to load Quicktime to view PNG files. It\'s a huge pain.

#147 Re: Re: .png support

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday February 8th, 2002 12:12 AM

Reply to this message

probably blame quicktime for that and not mozilla.

--Asa

#6 What is so native?

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Monday February 4th, 2002 10:16 PM

Reply to this message

I am reading about the native Windows XP theme. I am on WinXP. What exactly is native about Moz's theme in relation to XP? I can't see anything.

BTW, Mozilla with Windows XP ClearType looks spectacular. ClearType runs circles around anti-aliased text.

#7 Re: What is so native?

by wtmcgee

Monday February 4th, 2002 10:45 PM

Reply to this message

mozilla now uses the xp skin engine to make the UI for the classic theme - it just fits into the OS better, and it seems faster on my machine - not sure if that's true or not though.

#9 Re: What is so native?

by tono

Monday February 4th, 2002 10:46 PM

Reply to this message

You have to use the classic theme in order to see it, but the widgets, eg. buttons, scrollbars and the like should be the same as those in your XP desktop theme

#11 What is so native?

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 12:35 AM

Reply to this message

You are right, I didn't notice it. However, I don't think that it is faster. The pages load in the same amount of time.

One regression, though. I was using one of the better nightlies from 2 weeks ago. I have this script that starts 5 instances of Moz with my favorite sites. It was very, very fast, on par with IE. Now with the milestone, it is noticiably slower.

#14 File a bug report if you see it in the nightlies

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 1:35 AM

Reply to this message

please.

#10 Expecting Netscape 6.3 / 6.5 ...?

by kaosikon <niko@kaaos.org>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 12:19 AM

Reply to this message

Using 0.9.8. since this morning, and it feels incredibly fast, stable & coherent. Congratulations! Any rumours on a new Netscape branded release based on 0.9.8?

#12 Re: Expecting Netscape 6.3 / 6.5 ...?

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 1:05 AM

Reply to this message

The word on the street at the moment is that 6.5 is going to be the next Netscape version released, and that will be based on Moz 1.0.

However, there's a bunch of features which are supposed to be in 6.5 which aren't in Moz yet, so so I wouldn't be suprised if 6.5 slips, and an intermediate hi-perf/stable/api-frozen 6.3 comes out based on 1.0 or similar.

*shrug*

#15 Good release but...

by pepejeria

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 1:47 AM

Reply to this message

It gets better and better. But... I really hope that Netscape does not do a release on this version. Simply because the DHTML speed has never been worse. Somehow the speed gets worse and worse. This is the biggest reason that I have not left IE.

#16 DHTML

by Lancer

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 2:06 AM

Reply to this message

DHTML browsing kick ass!!

oh... my... God. i can not even saw the demo at Debug menu.

#25 Re: DHTML

by pepejeria

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:23 AM

Reply to this message

Works in all browsers, even Opera... <http://www.html-online.de/niko.temp/time/time.html>

Compare the speed with for example.. netscape 4

#100 Re: Re: DHTML

by Dan6992

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

\"Compare the speed with for example.. netscape 4\"

On my machine, a PIII 667mhz w/128Mb RAM, Netscape 4.7 is actually faster at rendering that page then IE5.5!

Dan

#93 The Demo seems to

by wvw

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 9:04 AM

Reply to this message

slow down a lot from the point that the fonts go a bit outside the viewable area.

#82 Re: Re: Expecting Netscape 6.3 / 6.5 ...?

by MozSaysAloha <hoshie@hotpop.com>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 4:18 AM

Reply to this message

I've believed that Netscape will base 6.3/6.4 on a varant of the forthcoming 0.9.9 and 6.5 will be based on 1.0.0.

#13 Definitively, the best release.

by Lancer

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 1:08 AM

Reply to this message

except for that ugly button to close the tabs, in modern theme.

#157 Re: Definitively, the best release.

by macpeep

Saturday February 9th, 2002 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

"except for that ugly button to close the tabs, in modern theme"

That, and the fact that you can't click on "Get Messages" until you select the folder pane if you have set your POP3 server to immediately fetch messages at startup. And polish stuff like the Address book having wide margins around all / most widgets, unlike any of the other apps in Mozilla. Mail composer has a "hole" in the toolbar where the progress meter used to be.. There's just a missing segment. Not transparent, just missing. Very obvious in Classic.. Lots of small stuff like that.. Lots and lots and lots.. When it all adds up, it gives a "toyish" feel to the app. Feature wise, stability wise and even performance wise now, I'd say there's very little, if anything, to complain about. That's definitely a good thing, but the polish issues are just as bad as two years ago. Very little improvement.. I'm a little worried by that, since Netscape has already released two browsers with all of these polish issues..

#158 Re: Re: Definitively, the best release.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday February 9th, 2002 4:45 PM

Reply to this message

" That's definitely a good thing, but the polish issues are just as bad as two years ago. "

You've got to be kidding. Go download M13 <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m13/> and use it for a day then come back here and tell us with a straight face that M13 is just as polished as 0.9.8. You're either just trolling, you've never used M13 era builds, or you simply forgot what it was like to use them. Well I haven't. I still run those old builds semi-regularly (all the way back to M3 and mozclassic) and I think that if anyone else does the same they're going to laugh at your comment. I'm not excusing the existing polish issues in Mozilla builds (or the Netscape releases based on those Mozilla builds) but to suggest that M13 is as polished as today's product is simply absurd.

--Asa

#161 Re: Re: Re: Definitively, the best release.

by macpeep

Sunday February 10th, 2002 2:51 AM

Reply to this message

"either just trolling, you've never used M13 era builds, or you simply forgot what it was like to use them."

Well, I've used Netscape browsers since the early 0.94 beta back in 1994. I started testing Mozilla builds since they were first released, which is a lot before there even were "milestone builds". So yes, I've used M13 era builds, tho I don't know if M13 was two years ago, but let's say, 0.6, which Netscape 6.0 was based on. How long ago is that? Over a year at least.. Closer to two? There's the same kind of "lack of quality *FEEL*" right now that there was in NS6.0. Yes, there are more polish fixes, but still nowhere near to the level that it would significantly help towards feeling like a high quality product. I still run into "huh? what the hell just happened??" type of situations nearly daily with Mozilla. Sometimes I click on "back" and I was taken two pages back in history, but I can't scroll the page (there's not even a scrollbar). Other times, it's something like adding a bookmark to a folder, and ending up with two folders of the same name, but no new bookmark. Reloading the browser fixes the situation. Or it's writing text in a text area and having everything just jump around, scrollbar coming and going for no good reason. Things like that.

#169 Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitively, the best release.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday February 10th, 2002 11:22 AM

Reply to this message

Let's not say 0.6. Let's not revise your original claim, cutting the time frame nearly in half. You said that it was no better than 2 years ago. Two years ago Netscape hadn't even done PR-1 yet. Two years ago we we had this <http://www.linet.gr.jp/~e…/M13/M13-jlp-over4-00.gif> and I can't think of a person on the planet that would use M13 and claim that it is as usable as today's build. Why don't you download M13 <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m13/> and use it for a week then tell us all how it's as usable as today's builds. You're clearly wrong. I can't think of many posts as wrong as yours and revising your original clam in an attempt to sound more reasonable is lame.

We could pretend for a second that your first absurd statement suggested Netscape 6 lacked a "quality *FEEL" and forget that you were actually saying that in current releases "the polish issues are just as bad as two years ago". Seems pretty revisionist but what the hell. You're memory is awefully fuzzy on dates for which you're making such dramatic claims. Yes, Netscape 6 was released over a year ago. Closer to 2 years ago? No. It was one year and a three months ago. Netscape 6 was widely chastized for being released prematurely with the majority of popular criticism directed at performance and polish. No one disputes that. Netscape 6.1 and 6.2 (based on 0.9.2.1 and 0.9.4.1) received much better reviews in the popular press on performance and polish <http://download.cnet.com/…665-106-1.lst-0-2.8105033> I challenge you to download Netscape 6.0 and use it for a week. Then get 0.9.8 and use it for a week. Come back here when you've done this and reassert that polish issues are no better. If you're so confident in your revised arguement you should be able to do that fine.

You're in the very small minority if you believe that current builds are no more polished than Netscape 6 or M13. Making incredible statements like that is trollish and insulting to all the people who have been busting their butts working to make this product better for the last 2 years. If you really have nothing better to do than insult other peoples' work then take it to betanews or mozillaquest.

--Asa

#170 two years

by macpeep

Sunday February 10th, 2002 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

Well, I should have been more accurate in two things.. 1) That I didn't mean "exactly 24 months ago" but rather "in a long time". 2) That I didn't mean "absolutely zero improvement".

You are absolutely right. I was very wrong about the dates.. I was actually surprised when I figured out (even before you said it) that NS6.0 is only a little over a year ago. How DOES it seem so long ago??? Also, you are definitely right that there has been improvement.. I didn't stand 6.0 (or 0.6) enough to use it for more than a day. 0.9.8 is starting to get very close to the point where it's usable by the large public on a daily basis.. Some already consider it usable, of course (and earlier, such as 6.1 and in particualar 6.2). Anyway, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Just pointing out that while it's very close to a 1.0 right now, there are still some pretty serious polish issues, just like there has been for quite some time.. Two years even..

#175 two years

by thegoldenear

Tuesday February 12th, 2002 2:08 AM

Reply to this message

"How DOES it seem so long ago???" precisely because, so much has changed. such is the way we judge the passing of time

#17 xml examples...

by Lancer

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 2:39 AM

Reply to this message

i do not know almost nothing about xml, but i tried a few of this examples in this page: <http://xml101.com/examples/> and i found some didnt work

#20 Re: xml examples...

by shin

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 7:06 AM

Reply to this message

< start quote > Warning !!! To view the examples, you must browse with IE 5

This school focus on the XML software implemented in Microsoft Internet Explorer 5, and its XML processor called MSXML. It will be of little use to explore any of our software examples using any other browser. < end quote >

You will also find out Mozilla doesn't handle the CSS filter:alpha-etc properties, if you want to point some IE things. Half of the examples are using ActiveX, and obscure <object> references, so no wonder they do not work on Mozilla.

You showed cases of MSIE-specific coding that break in Mozilla. Try MozillaQuestQuest.com on IE. Now that's _standard_ coding that breaks in IE. I'll let you decide on how laughable/cryable the situation is.

The only problem I see here is the mishandling of an internal stylesheet, and that is all.

#30 IE XHTML breakage

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 9:33 AM

Reply to this message

> Try MozillaQuestQuest.com on IE. Now that's _standard_ coding that breaks in IE.

Not necessarily. IE rendering that page as a tree instead of XHTML because its default XSL stylesheet says to do so on pages served as text/xml or aplication/xml. Apparently, XHTML sent to IE needs some sort of stylesheet to implement XHTML rendering. Anybody know where to find such a stylesheet?

#76 but there is a stylesheet

by niner

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 2:12 AM

Reply to this message

mozillaquestquest.com/styles the browser should use this style to layout the xml page and if it does not it's simply a bug and nothing more.

#160 MIME Type?

by vcs2600 <vcs2600@yahoo.com>

Saturday February 9th, 2002 8:33 PM

Reply to this message

I think the site uses a MIME type that confuses IE. This MIME type only became an official standard a couple days ago, but Mozilla already supported it (and IE 6.0 should have...). So, it\'s a bug, but a bleeding edge one.

#39 Re: xml examples...

by tny

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

MSXML Version 2 (the XML parser in all IE versions before IE6) used the <http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl> namespace for XSLT. That WD stands for "draft." There were significant changes to XSLT between the WD-xsl draft and the <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform> final Recommendation.

IE6 can switch its handling of XSLT based upon the namespace declarations.

That said, I'm getting some problem rendering XML+XSLT in the 2002013103 nightly: instead of the transformation result, all that's being displayed is the XML version and namespace of the result as plain text in the browser window (version 1.0 <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml>). Any ideas what's causing this? (The page looks fine in IE, and it does follow the <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform> recommendation).

#40 Re: xml examples...

by tny

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:45 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, those namespaces were rendered as links (for some reason I wasn't thinking of them as URIs). The WD is [W3C url +]/TR/WD-xsl, while the recommendation is [W3C url +]/1999/XSL/Transform .

#18 hiding its assets?

by johann_p

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 4:28 AM

Reply to this message

when I read the release notes, I was puzzled: I have been using nightlies regularly and I have the impression that there should be much much more new and enhanced in this release. I didnt track changes so I cant say in detail, but things like labels, save complete site, save text, DOM speedups and others have been added since 0.9.7, no? Mozilla should take more care in telling people what a good product this actually is! (e.g. the austrian daily press "der standard" has an article that simply calls this a bugfix release!)

#19 Re: hiding its assets?

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 5:04 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't tested the new version yet. But I did read the release notes and I didn't get to excited when I read it. Isn't there mail speedups aswell ? And what happened to favicons ? Are they removed ? If so why ?

DHTML ? Can it go slower on Mozilla than it already does on previus releases ? :(

I'm not seeing much in the release notes that makes me want to update from 0.97. Please overconvince me!

#21 OT how to convince

by shin

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 7:23 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape.de's 'Light clothed Girls' section is now part of the default bookmarks, wow ! If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what would ;)

#26 Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes

by dipa

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:28 AM

Reply to this message

Are we expecting only enchancements from Mozilla? The crowd of real bugs (i.e. not features) being fixed can't convince someone to switch to 0.9.8?

#27 Re: Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:41 AM

Reply to this message

Ofcourse it can. And ofcourse something has been done between the two versions. But why don't they mention those bug fixes (at least the more important ones). What they do mention is that some changes has caused DHTML to run nearly twice as slow.

Im not saying that this version is bad. Im just asking why it's better! Because Mozilla.org:s release notes are not to positive.

#48 Re: Re: Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes

by dipa

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 3:18 PM

Reply to this message

I can see your point but you must not consider milestones as commercial releases. Here there are so many bug fixes that would make the release notes unreadable.

Why not searching Bugzilla? Unfortunately, on release notes there isn\'t such an easy link for retrieving all numbers-descriptions of 0.9.8 bug fixes. Here is one: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…se+same+sort+as+last+time>

These are 1438 bugs (fixes between 14 Dec and 18 Jan, all of the \"programs\" that form the application). I don\'t think there might be anyone involved in the project that would dedicate time to create and publish a description of the most important among these 1438 items.

#73 Re: Re: Re: Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes,Bug fixes

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 12:36 AM

Reply to this message

Well maybee I'm just used to more concrete changes as it has been in the latest builds. But I do think they should show off more how good they are solving 1438 bugs and what this means to stability and performance compared to 0.97! Instead of saying "well this caused DHTML to be twice as slow".

I'm convinced that when Netscape releases their next version of the browser they will do the show off part so I wont miss it =)

#144 Re: Bug fixes

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 6:20 PM

Reply to this message

The issue you brought up is valid. The problem comes from the fact that most of the people who submit things for release notes do not really note new features (since most of them are not new to them as they use the nightlies). Most of them will note bugs that were not fixed as they have been annoyed by it and/or testing/trying to fix it. For the release notes to have the info you want, someone needs to keep track of the major changes and note them down (probably in a bugzilla bug report?)

#31 Re: hiding its assets?

by fuzzygorilla

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:05 AM

Reply to this message

Actually 'labels' landed in 0.9.7, rather than 0.9.8. See the Mozilla 0.9.7 Release Notes <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.7/> . I think many people will be happy with the print and print preview changes .

#34 Re: Re: hiding its assets?

by garfieldbond

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:50 AM

Reply to this message

Wow, print preview and print is really nice now, XUL widgets for dialog and a viewable print preview... Now if only we can get a "Close" button :)

#23 Linux Installer just crashes?

by tearex

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

Why does the Linux net installer keep crashing with page faults?

#32 Re: Linux Installer just crashes?

by fuzzygorilla

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

This problem is Bug 123474 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123474> but there are a couple of work-arounds. The first workaround is to just get the tar ball instead of doing a network install ( <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…pc-linux-gnu-0.9.8.tar.gz> ). The second is to do the FTP by hand of the XPI files and then run mozilla-installer to install them. You can get the list of XPI files for the components you want from the config.ini file. The XPI files need to go in the mozilla-installer/xpi directory.

#24 View Source

by xerxes

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:22 AM

Reply to this message

Nice build but until view source is fixed, it is useless for development. :(

#36 Re: View Source

by fuzzygorilla

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:08 AM

Reply to this message

Hyperbole does no one good. View source will work with any static content and thus serves the needs of most users. Mozilla 0.9.8 is useful for development and in fact, is important for developers. True - if you are working on server side development, then using Mozilla 0.9.8 as your sole development tool will be more difficult. The problem that View Source is unable to find the original HTML source is (as you know) Bug 55583 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55583> and is waiting for Bug 40867 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40867> to be resolved. Bug 40867 is a hard problem and so it is taking time to 'do it right'.

#52 Re: Re: View Source

by xerxes

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 4:22 PM

Reply to this message

True, it serves the needs of most users. However the fact remains until this bug is fixed it is a major problem for professional web developers. That is unless you like having another browser open for the sole purpose of viewing the source.

#59 Re: Re: Re: View Source

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:39 PM

Reply to this message

What's broken about it? It seems to work fine for me..

#63 Re: Re: Re: Re: View Source

by the_new_guy

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:03 PM

Reply to this message

When you view source, the page is reloaded from the server. This means that you don't always get the source of the page on your screen. For static pages everything's fine, but for dynamic pages this could mean trouble.

#69 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: View Source

by bzbarsky

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:50 PM

Reply to this message

Use the DOM inspector. It gives more useful info than view source anyway....

And I _will_ fix view source as soon as Rick gets his nsIPageDescriptor act together.

#78 Use a bookmarklet

by sconest

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 3:04 AM

Reply to this message

You can use this bookmarklet. It opens a new window with the generated source.

javascript:(function(){ function htmlEscape(s){s=s.replace(/&/g,\'&\');s=s.replace(/>/g,\'>\');s=s.replace(/</g,\'&lt;\');return s;} x=window.open(); x.document.write(\'<pre>\' + htmlEscape(\'<html>\\n\' + document.documentElement.innerHTML + \'\\n</html>\')); x.document.close(); })();

#113 Thanks!

by theuiguy

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 5:01 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like Mozillazine corrupted that a bit. I had to strip the backslashes. I'll post what seems to be working for me and hopefully it won't be messed up. That's the first time I've seen a wyciwyg URL. Fascinating.

I simplified the bookmarklet a touch while I was at it:

javascript:function htmlEscape(s){s=s.replace(/&/g,'&amp;');s=s.replace(/>/g,'&gt;');s=s.replace(/</g,'&lt;');return s;} x=window.open(); x.document.write('<pre>' + htmlEscape('<html>\n' + document.documentElement.innerHTML + '\n</html>')); x.document.close();

#28 How to stop animated gifs?

by FattMattP

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 9:15 AM

Reply to this message

How does one stop animated gifs? They keep animating and I can\'t select the stop button nor stop in the popup menu over the images.

#37 Re: How to stop animated gifs?

by fuzzygorilla

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:26 AM

Reply to this message

To set your animation preferences on a long term basis, use the Edit->Preferences->Privacy&Security->Images options (Never, Once, As many times as the image specifies). If you have an image that is already animating, try using the 'Escape' key or go to the View->Stop menu item. If you are still having problems, you might want to let us know the URL so that someone else can see what the problem may be. It would also be nice to know what platform you are on (and software version if not 0.9.8).

#58 Re: How to stop animated gifs?

by FattMattP

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:32 PM

Reply to this message

This happens on any page with animated gifs (and I mean every single one). I'm using 0.9.8 right now and it's having the problem, yet this problem has existed since Mozilla first started displaying animated gifs. <http://linuxtoday.com> is a great example of a site with animated gifs. I hit escape and they don't stop. The stop button on the screen is greyed out. Trying to click on it anyway does nothing. The View->Stop menu item is greyed out. Same thing for right clicking on an animating gif and slecting stop from the popup menu. It's greyed out.

I\\\\\\\'m using 0.9.8 - build 2002020406 on Windows 2000. I am using the default Mozilla settings.

#96 Re: Re: How to stop animated gifs?

by fuzzygorilla

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 10:22 AM

Reply to this message

Okay. I took a look at the URL you provided. I have my preferences set up for 'Animated images should loop' 'Once' and the pref worked. So, I poked around on Bugzilla and I see that there is a bug open ( Bug 70030 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70030> ) on just the problem you describe - 'Cannot stop animation with webNavigation.stop (escape key)'. Because of my preferences, I had never bothered to try to stop an animation and so did not even know it no longer worked. Bug 70030 does have a target milestone of 0.9.9 so maybe in the next release.

#29 redraw problems fixed?

by stylo

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

On recent nightlies the redraw problems which have never been fixed were even worse. (Switching to dispay:none often leaves remnants on the page.) Has this been fixed or will it be? Horribly annoying and makes it hard to say that the associated css is really working.

#38 Re: redraw problems fixed?

by fuzzygorilla

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:40 AM

Reply to this message

How recently a nightly? Keep in mind that 0.9.8 was branched from the trunk back on January 18 (or so). Regressions on the trunk during the first few weeks after a branch are not unusual (as people check in riskier changes). <sarcasm> No, because you have publicly mentioned the bugs, they will now never be fixed and all your accounts will be charged ten pfenugens. </sarcasm> What is/are the Bug number(s)? References to specific bugs is useful if you really want to see a reasonable answer.

#64 redraw problems MUCH worse now with .98

by stylo

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:32 PM

Reply to this message

Very recent. Sorry, I don't know bug numbers. I just try out the browser because I like it, and post occassionally. I know, I'm not a team player :-(

I have a page where images are changed and hidden/shown via display all within a css layout. Also other info is changed dynamically via the dom. Before, including .97, moz was great with this page, though some redraw problems existed. Recent nightlies had more problems, and .98 is the WORST I've seen. All manner of remnants are left on the page (including entire pictures that are hidden), dynamically written sections are clipped a little so the bottom sentence is only half showing, and the page is not reflowed and overlap occurs with the section below.

The worst is that remanants were normally cleared up with moz when you scroll or resize, but .98 sometimes works there, but usually gets much worse, with multiple instances of the same object showing. Renders the design useless - and by that I mean using the dom to dynamically change info within it. Of course it must be something to do with the relatively complicated design - all css, some absolute positioning - and not just the simple showing/hiding of any div, but .98 is seriously broken here where .97 was fine. Remnants were being left whenever changing the display horizontally (vertically was fine) with Moz on every version I have tried since quite a few milestones, but .98 has some serious regressions on page redraw.

The bugs I will leave for the exterminators.

** "<sarcasm> No, because you have publicly mentioned the bugs, they will now never be fixed and all your accounts will be charged ten pfenugens. </sarcasm>" -Have change for a 50 pfenugen?

#75 can you provide an URL demonstrating your problem?

by NEMESiS_TF

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 2:08 AM

Reply to this message

can you provide an URL demonstrating your problem? i can't reproduce your problems with 2002020409 on eric a mayers pure css popup page <http://www.meyerweb.com/e…css/edge/popups/demo.html>

#83 redraw problems MUCH worse now with .98

by stylo

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 4:28 AM

Reply to this message

sorry, I haven't finished the site or I would. Eric's page is fine. I think the problem involves more complicated layouts. -But it worked before in .97 and previous versions.

#94 Re: redraw problems MUCH worse now with .98

by fuzzygorilla

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 9:39 AM

Reply to this message

> Sorry, I don't know bug numbers... I know, I'm not a team player

It is not really a matter of being a 'team player', it is just that the way you phrased your initial question: 'the redraw problems which have never been fixed'; led me to believe you knew that there was a bug open on the problem.

My recommendation is that you go to the Bugzilla and open a Bugzilla account (if you have not already) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/createaccount.cgi> . Then use the Bugzilla Helper to file a bug on your problem <http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/bug-form.html> . This will allow you to know a bug number that you can follow to track the progress on fixing the redraw problems you are seeing. If another bug matches your problem then the bug triagers will mark it a duplicate with a pointer to the matching open bug. The developers may have questions for you, so watch for Bugzilla mail.

You don't have to have a URL to point the Mozilla developers to - you can attach your HTML document to the bug for them to examine. Please try to make sure you include as specifically as possible the actions the testers will need to take to duplicate the behavior you are seeing.

This shouldn't take more than 15-20 minutes of time and it will help you and Mozilla out. It is almost as simple as posting to MozillaZine :-)

#122 redraw problems MUCH worse now with .98

by stylo

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 10:55 PM

Reply to this message

I'll try and get a page up to link to. Good points, but personally I don't want to file/track/email about bugs. I just want to selfishly use the browser. I've got 2 businesses to run and a Ph.D to worry about. I figure the people in charge of that area must know what the heck is going on, and if they don't they will sooner or later. Or Netscape will fix it. Or the bbrowser will "suck."

#124 and how...

by niner

Thursday February 7th, 2002 12:44 AM

Reply to this message

in the world should they know about your weird problems if you just don't tell them? Ok they could test every single possible HTML page and maybe in year 47238 they get to a page like your's and find the problem. This is a 4 million+ lines project not a litte tool with 3 possible input combinations.

Obviously you have enough time to read and post in this forum so why not give a few minutes to post it on Bugzilla? And if you really have no time simplay pay someone for doing it (remember you pay nothing for Mozilla), that's business.

Just give it a try, it won't hurt but may help great :)

#145 Well,...

by stylo

Thursday February 7th, 2002 9:06 PM

Reply to this message

posting takes about 10 seconds and is then done. You have to understand that there are people who build the browser and those who just want to use it, or contribute in the slightest way because they have their own interests/projects. I'm one of the latter. Better to post and ask/contribute something than nothing at all. I understand the point you make, and will try to post some pages shortly for the developers to look at, but I took one look at Bugzilla and that was enough for me.

#33 About mozilla is blank

by baffoni

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:34 AM

Reply to this message

It doesn\'t appear to say it is .9.8 in the help/about (on my Win2k system anyway).

#35 Re: About mozilla is blank

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

Works for me on WIndows XP. It says "Mozilla 0.9.8" with a user agent string of "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204". Are you sure you've actually got 0.9.8? It's not on <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/> yet. I almost downloaded 0.9.7 by mistake. Do you think you could have done the same thing?

Alex

#137 RE: About Mozilla is blank

by baffoni

Thursday February 7th, 2002 3:22 PM

Reply to this message

I'm sure - it has a build ID of 2002020406. Weird thing is now it works....

#42 font size shrank

by starless

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 12:48 PM

Reply to this message

Is it just me, or are other people having problems with mail with 0.9.8?

I\'m supposed to have several new messages in my inbox but I can\'t see them!

Running on a Linux box with movemail.

#43 font size shrank

by starless

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 12:49 PM

Reply to this message

Is it just me, or are other people having problems with mail with 0.9.8?

I\'m supposed to have several new messages in my inbox but I can\'t see them!

Running on a Linux box with movemail.

#44 site buggy?

by tim_olsen

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

is it me or is this site buggy? half the time i get a cannot connect to sql error. and when I go to reply to a message it selects the wrong message.

but to keep this kind of on topic, the net installer for 0.9.8 also segfaults for me on debian woody. I had to use the full installer.

#45 Much better!

by thoffman11

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 2:17 PM

Reply to this message

I had horrors left and right with stability issues with .9.7 on 3 different win2k machines. Moz's stability had been average to above average since .9.1, as far as I was concerned. But .9.7 commonly crashed, took forever to load (the window loaded but froze for about 30-60 seconds loading the personal toolbar) and on one machine I could never get it to run at all.

So far (haven't installed it on machine #3 yet), it's as good as ever...thanks guys for the hard work!

#46 Netscape Popularity

by thelem

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 2:54 PM

Reply to this message

Has anyone here bought a new PC recently? I was just looking at my copy of PC Plus (UK) and noticed that of the 3 laptops they had on test (all running WinXP), all 3 had a Netscape 6 icon on the desktop and only one had an IE icon. They were made by Mesh, Samsung and Pico.

If this is representitive of the industry as whole, then Mozilla's market share should start rising to a respectable level again.

BTW - There were no other reviews where you could see what was on the desktop of a new machine.

#50 Re: Netscape Popularity

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 4:16 PM

Reply to this message

/me reaches for my copy

It looks like the Mesh system (the one with the IE icon) is the only one that's had the default icons (My Documents, My COmputer, My Network Places and Internet Explorer) turned on with the others going for the default clean desktop look. I believe that Microsoft has a contractual agreement with OEMs stating that if they decide to put any icons on the desktop then they must also put Microsoft icons such as Windows Media Player and MSN on the desktop. Doesn't look like it's well-enforced then.

Personally, my desktop just has the Recycle Bin on it.

Alex

#67 Re: Netscape Popularity

by garfieldbond

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:13 PM

Reply to this message

I've seen some new compaqs carrying Netscape 6.1, although IE was on the desktop too I think...

#74 Re: Netscape Popularity

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 12:46 AM

Reply to this message

Alot of media, organisations etc uses Netscape 4.x or Netscape 6.x for example because IE: * Comes from Microsoft * People who work with layout loves macintosh, ok well, nearly all =)

I can't speak for all companies and organisations all over the world but here i Sweden for example media and organisations often choose to show an example using Netscape instead of IE.

That's only positive but as long as IE is shipped with windows most users wont change their browser, that's a fact. People are lazy... :(

#112 Re: Re: Netscape Popularity

by MXN

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 4:54 PM

Reply to this message

"Alot of media, organisations etc uses Netscape 4.x or Netscape 6.x for example because IE: * Comes from Microsoft * People who work with layout loves macintosh, ok well, nearly all =)"

I know I've seen CNN use Opera, so I guess it is because they just don't like Micro$oft.

#47 off topic

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 3:11 PM

Reply to this message

Don't know when Page Setup got into Moz, but I just noticed it today, and it rocks! The page scaling ability came in handy today when I needed to print a page with a lot of info for my boss.

#49 XP integration

by solhell

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 3:26 PM

Reply to this message

I am very impressed with the XP integration. It is really beautiful. Being a cross platform application and having native look is a big accomplishment and shows the power of the design and API's of mozilla.

#51 Wow, speedy!

by SmileyBen

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 4:17 PM

Reply to this message

All I can say is 'My God, that's fast!!!'. I'm using Redhat 7.2, Athlon 700, 256 Meg Ram, and the speed improvements over the last milestone are staggering - it renders pages in a jiffy!

#53 Tab padding

by SmileyBen

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 4:29 PM

Reply to this message

Argh: why do we need as much padding in the tab bar as in 0.9.8? In fact, why isn't the tab bar just like all the other bars - it could look fairly similar to the personal toolbar, but still distinct. Or why not use sidebar tabs (which are small, at least in modern) for tabs? It's just really annoying that the tab bar chops out a cm of real estate!

#54 Problems with the linux version

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:05 PM

Reply to this message

I installed 0.9.8 in windows first, and was impressed with it. Lots of improvements over 0.9.7, even though that always worked good for me too.

Well... My problems started when I updated my linux version of 0.9.6 to 0.9.8. (Running mandrake 8.1)

First the theme was locked to clasic, and I only managed to change it back to modern after downloadeing another skin, change to it, and then changing back to modern. Very strange...

Then I had alot of crashes just when I was clicking around in the preferences.

The mousewheel also stoped working and that\'s *really* anoying. It worked perfectly before, and it workes good everywhere else in my system.

Finaly I noticed that the scrollbar on the box I\'m writing this in didn\'t work anymore, so I had to switch to konqueror.

I have heard only good things about this release, and the windows version works great for me, but am I the only one with these problems under linux?

#55 Ohh... one thing more

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:08 PM

Reply to this message

If anyone knows a solution to my mousewheel problem, *please* let me know.

/Ripat

#81 Great! It self healed...

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 3:42 AM

Reply to this message

Somehow my problem with the mousewheel fixed itself during the night. Don't know how... I surely restarted mozilla last night too...

Well, well... it works

/Ripat

#139 Re: Problems with the linux version

by unbekannt

Thursday February 7th, 2002 4:31 PM

Reply to this message

You may want to rm -rf ~/.mozilla after installing a new browser. Sometimes the previous configurations can mess up the newer browser. I use nightly Mozillas, and I have to do that every third or fourth time I update.

#148 Re: Re: Problems with the linux version

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Friday February 8th, 2002 4:26 AM

Reply to this message

Yupp... That was the first thing I did when I started to get these problems. Anyway, I finaly managed to get back to modern skin, and the mousewheel selfhealed (selfhealing is an very impressive feature...like that :), and now I noticed that even the scrollbar in this editbox works, so now everything works fine again.

Except some small graphical bugs, but nothing to annoying.

#56 Can't save files in Composer in 0.9.8

by yusri

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:09 PM

Reply to this message

I had been eagerly waiting for 0.9.8 to come out. Once it was out, I installed it only to find out I cannot save files I edited in Composer. I run Mozilla on Win2000. *sigh* Time to revert to 0.9.7. (I have not used bugzilla before. I will see how to report this problem there.)

#61 Re: Can't save files in Composer in 0.9.8

by yusri

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:51 PM

Reply to this message

I found a bugzilla entry 121870 (<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121870>) that seems to match the problem I am seeing. (I am new to bugzilla. The bug is marked duplicate. If it is how can I find the 'original' bug?)

I did some more probing. It seems like if I create a new html file in Composer with a simple text in it, I can save it with no problem. I just cannot save a file I have been editing using Composer in 0.9.7. Maybe, I should try to see what part of the page that causes the problem...

#65 Re: Re: Can't save files in Composer in 0.9.8

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 8:50 PM

Reply to this message

"I found a bugzilla entry 121870 (LINK) that seems to match the problem I am seeing. (I am new to bugzilla. The bug is marked duplicate. If it is how can I find the 'original' bug?)"

Look for the bit that says:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of XXXXXX ***

It will contain a link to the original bug (in this case bug 119496) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119496>

Bear in mind that after been marked as a duplicate, bugs can always be reopened (the same applies for FIXED etc.), though it didn't happen in this case.

Hope this helps.

Alex

#72 Thanks and I think I've found the culprit

by yusri

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:55 PM

Reply to this message

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your pointer. I have given the "original" bug a look. It seems like bug 121870 better matches the problem I am seeing.

In the meantime, I have been testing on my html file that has the saving problem. The culprit seems to be this particular line in the file:

<link rel="STYLESHEET" href="/styles.css">

Composer does not like, in its view, a nonexistent file "/styles.css". Of course it does not exist on the local filesystem. But it does on my internal website.

I'm running on Win2000 so it is hard to make the path above works both on the local filesystem and at the website.

#57 Whatever

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:19 PM

Reply to this message

I currently have to use Internet Explorer to view Mozillazine properly. That seems very sick-minded and evil.

#60 Re: Whatever

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 6:40 PM

Reply to this message

Hmm, yes, I see. Good point.

#62 Get over it

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 7:45 PM

Reply to this message

Did it escape you that you're using - and bitching about - pre-release software? PRE 1.0, even?

JR

#77 my 2 cents

by tono

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 2:42 AM

Reply to this message

maybe, but it speaks poorly of the site administrators if they can't make a mozilla advocacy site work properly in the browser they're advocating as a good browser.

#86 Re: my 2 cents

by garfieldbond

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 7:03 AM

Reply to this message

Eh, looks as it should in Netscape 6.21, which is a bit odd, since it doesn't look correct in Moz builds.

#89 Over what?

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 7:53 AM

Reply to this message

Sarcasm is a wunderful thing. But you're american, or at least living in america, so it's no wonder you didn't pick it.

Next time, I'll put big warning signs around the use of any sarcasm im my posts, so you'll be in a position to have a clue about what is going on.

^_^

#98 Re: Over what?

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 10:49 AM

Reply to this message

Tone of voice does not work in text*. There was nothing about your reply that gave any sign of not being a \"me too\" post. If you can\'t express yourself clearly, don\'t complain when people misunderstand you.

*Some people go further and claim that sarcasm doesn\'t work in text. This is of course not true--just read anything by Dorothy Parker (\"Her performance ran the gamut of emotions from A to B.\") But sarcasm that depends on eye-rolling, tone of voice, or body language falls flat.

#109 Re: Re: Over what?

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 4:10 PM

Reply to this message

"Tone of voice does not work in text"

Yes, of course it doesn't. But often terseness is used as a replacement. Perhaps I wasn't terse enough.

[shrug]

#123 Me Too

by superyooser

Thursday February 7th, 2002 12:05 AM

Reply to this message

With Mozilla, the tables that display the comments are jammed up against the left side of the page. The other 70% of the page (on the right) is empty. It's messed up in Netscape 6.2.1 too. This problem has shown up on other web sites, but usually a reload will fix it. Mozillazine is the *only* site I've come across that is messed up permanently. It *is* twisted.

#66 Most annoying problem.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 9:51 PM

Reply to this message

The personal toolbar has pretty much replaced the bookmarks for me. I have everything organized in folders - it's great. However, when I start dragging the site URL into one of the folders, Moz pops up the tooltip for the address bar: "Enter search term, keyword or web address". It should never do it when I am dragging.

BTW, I used to complain bitterly about speed - that's because at work I am on P3/600 and the speed difference between IE and Moz is still significant there (i don't care what anyone says, it is true for me). But at home I got a brand spanking new Dell p4/1.7Ghz and the CPU power simply erases any speed differences. At home it is now my preferred browser.

Last gripe: would someone please port the Toy Factory theme to Moz, for god's sake - the rest of them suck horribly.

#92 Re: Most annoying problem.

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

"would someone please port the Toy Factory theme to Moz, for god's sake - the rest of them suck horribly" Alot of sarcasm here today... I hope =)

#117 Re: Most annoying problem.

by lucx

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 5:52 PM

Reply to this message

A P4 1.7Ghz *just* to run a full speed. Sheesh. But if you're running on a lowly Pentium 200 you're biggest problem is UI freeze <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91643> making it almost unsable

#68 Three more boogs.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:31 PM

Reply to this message

bug 1: Keyboard shortcut Ctrl++ (for cranking up zoom level) doesn't work. Oddly Ctrl+- (for zooming out) works fine. This is on XP and is probably easy to fix.

boog 2: This has to do with the form/password manager and can be seen on MozillaZine. When you post a message, Moz saves the login, password and title. If you post again, but with a different title, Moz saves a new set (login,password,title). So now you have two entries with the same login/password. When you get to the story in MozillaZine, a dialog pops up asking me to choose between 2 identical logins.

Boog 3. The multiple line textbox is pretty bad. This has been an issue for a while.

Please don't ask me to add these to Bugzilla, as I can't figure the damn thing out.

#70 Re: Three more boogs.

by bzbarsky

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 10:54 PM

Reply to this message

> This is on XP and is probably easy to fix.

It's on all windows and is a general problem. This is why ctrl-enter also does not work on Windows. The fix is not making itself obvious to some very smart people who have looked at it...

And yes, textareas suck. The bugs have been filed awhile... :(

Boog #2 should be filed. And I _will_ ask you to do it since you're the one who can reproduce it... :)

#101 Re: Re: Three more boogs.

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 12:12 PM

Reply to this message

Bug #2 happens to me often when I use Mozilla to view Mozillazine.

#104 Re: Three more boogs.

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 1:36 PM

Reply to this message

Try using the +/= next to the backspace key, as opposed to the big + on the numeric keypad. For some reason windows treats these differently.

#105 Re: Three more boogs.

by fuzzygorilla

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

> Please don't ask me to add these to Bugzilla, as I can't figure > the damn thing out.

Are you using the Bugzilla Helper version <http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/bug-form.html> or the Advanced version <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi> ? If you are having problems with the Bugzilla Helper version, can you tell us where you hit the first part you cannot figure out?

#121 Thanks, dude.

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 10:48 PM

Reply to this message

>>Are you using the Bugzilla Helper version (LINK) Much better. I've entered the bug. Here is a stupid question. Why isn't the simple interface the DEFAULT.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124070>

#125 Re: Thanks, dude.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 2:35 AM

Reply to this message

I'm not sure which one you want to be the default. The simple interface is for advanced users who know what kinds of information to include in a report. It is faster to use and for those people who report hundreds (or in the case of a few people, thousands) of bugs the time savings using the simple interface is valuable. The more complex interface that holds your hand and explains all the fields is linked from the largest, most prominent link at the Bugzilla front page <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/> because we hope that people who don't have experience will use the helper which usually results in much more useful bug reports.

--Asa

#71 problem

by Akula

Tuesday February 5th, 2002 11:01 PM

Reply to this message

with mozilla 0.95,0.96,0.97 and the new 0.98 (not with oldier version) this site ( <http://www.clubic.com> ) dont work correctly, all people of the forum search why, we don't found.

#79 Re: problem

by niner

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 3:12 AM

Reply to this message

Try to solve every single problem the w3c HTML validator reports and if it still doesn't work report back, cause then it is a Mozilla problem for pretty sure.

<http://validator.w3.org/c…lly%29&doctype=Inline>

#80 yes but...

by Akula

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 3:40 AM

Reply to this message

this problem don't appear with mozilla 0.93 and 0.94(and netscape6,6.1,6.2)

#84 Re: problem

by gmiller

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 5:03 AM

Reply to this message

What exactly is the problem? I'm afraid I only read English, so I didn't see anything obviously wrong using 0.9.7.

It may be that performance or feature work broke something or that a bug fix in the browser caused your site to stop working. Hard to say without more details.

#90 Invalid doctype

by theuiguy

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 8:05 AM

Reply to this message

I believe the problem is that the page uses an invalid doctype. When confronted with an unknown doctype, mozilla now uses strict mode instead of quirks. The doctype used is !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//FR". I believe that HTML requires that the language be English. So the correct doctype is !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN". This does not mean that the content of the page is in English, just that the HTML markup is English. Hope this helps. Perhaps Mozilla needs to recognize this page as quirks mode.

#91 Re: Invalid doctype

by theuiguy

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 8:23 AM

Reply to this message

I should have mentioned that with the correct doctype the page renders basically the same as in IE.

The doctype problem is bug 101600 and is marked won't fix. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101600>

#85 saving stored passwords through Password manager

by rein

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 6:03 AM

Reply to this message

I am using the password manager to store my passwords with great pleasure.

Today, however, I lost all information, because I used Netscape 6.2 and Mozilla 0.9.7 at the same time (the two managers probably distroyed my datafile).

Now I am wondering if it might be possible to archive the datafile somewhere and restore it lateron.

Now this file was corrupted I experimented a little bit, for example, copy the datafile into a new one, exit Mozilla, rename the copied file into the original name, and start M again. The password manager did not see this file anymore, and the data was lost.

Backing up your system will not work in this way, I presume, for the password manager will notice that the datafile has been restored and start all over again.

Has someone a solution for archiving the datafile and restoring it lateron, or is this contradicting with security?

#87 Re: saving stored passwords through Password manag

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 7:13 AM

Reply to this message

The Password Manager data is stored in a file called xxxxxxxx.s in your profile folder, where x is a number (on Windows anyway). To back this file up, copy it somewhere. If you want to restore it (due to the accidental deletion of the original or creation of a new profile) then run Moz and get it to save a password. You need to do this so that you have a new Password Manager file. Go into your profile folder and find out the name of the new .s file (it'll probably be different to the old one). Rename your backup file so that it has the same name as the new file and move it into your profile folder, overwriting the newer version. Moz should be able to access your passwords fine now.

Alex

#88 Re: saving stored passwords through Password manag

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 7:13 AM

Reply to this message

The Password Manager data is stored in a file called xxxxxxxx.s in your profile folder, where x is a number (on Windows anyway). To back this file up, copy it somewhere. If you want to restore it (due to the accidental deletion of the original or creation of a new profile) then run Moz and get it to save a password. You need to do this so that you have a new Password Manager file. Go into your profile folder and find out the name of the new .s file (it'll probably be different to the old one). Rename your backup file so that it has the same name as the new file and move it into your profile folder, overwriting the newer version. Moz should be able to access your passwords fine now.

Alex

#180 saving stored passwords through Password manager

by rein

Thursday February 21st, 2002 2:30 AM

Reply to this message

I have tried this but for whatever reason I could not recover my old password savings. In my opinion copying and/or renaming influnces the decoding and thus the content of the file.

#95 Solaris 2.6 Release??

by johann_p

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

Why is it that releases never are available as Solaris 2.6 binaries? (unlike nightlies, where at least now and then a 2.6 is available). Not everybody is using 2.8 yet and the 2.8 wont work with earlier releases. Please provide a 2.6 (SPARC) binary!

#128 Re: Solaris 2.6 Release??

by urichter <udo_richter@gmx.de>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 3:11 AM

Reply to this message

PLLEEEAAASSSEEE! :)

#135 Re: Solaris 2.6 Release??

by crumley

Thursday February 7th, 2002 10:33 AM

Reply to this message

Did you try the Solaris 8 build under Solaris 2.6? The milestones have always worked for me under Solaris 7 even though they're built for Solaris 8.

Anyway, I think that the Solaris milestone builds are donated by outside people. So unless someone with a Solaris 2.6 box can be found to donate builds, I think that we'll be stuck with the Solaris 8 builds.

Personally, I think the bigger problem is the lack of up to date Solaris nightly builds <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106009> .

#97 javascript

by AgePee <Hanno.Pichler@web.de>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

mozilla runs just like hell, there is only one exception: javascript. there are so many pages with javascript that just don't work. what is the reason for that? bad coding? ie only j-script? any ideas?

#99 Re: javascript

by fuzzygorilla

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

Would you give the URLs of some of the pages that "just don't work"? This would allow us to try to see what the problems might be (bad coding, etc).

#106 Re: Re: javascript

by AgePee <Hanno.Pichler@web.de>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

<http://www.isonews.com> (menu when you click on releases does not work.) <http://www.voodooextreme.com> (there should be pictures at the top of the page whrere the -ve- headline is.) <http://www.4players.de/news.php3> (when you click on a game title, there should appear a context menu with further links to this title) <http://www.little-idiot.de/> (navigation menu should circle around the picture.) <http://www.puretec.de/pts…yj2RlLmP04300/index2.html> (at the buttom of the page, when you hold your mouse over the offerings (webadresse 3.0, visitenkarte 3.0...) there should appear a little window with further informations.)

sorry for the lack of information that I gave.

#108 Re: Re: Re: javascript

by RB_

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 3:54 PM

Reply to this message

JavaScript in one of your examples (<http://www.little-idiot.de/>) makes a decision based on whether the appName is \"Netscape\" or documant.all exists. Since Mozilla has neither, the script does not work (\"company has no properties\" in JS console). I suspect other examples are similar.

#136 Re: Re: Re: javascript

by fuzzygorilla

Thursday February 7th, 2002 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

Thank you for posting the links you were seeing problems with. I am *NOT* a javascript programmer, but I took a quick look at the souce and Bugzilla. The first problem you found (<http://www.isonews.com>) is a problem with the JS on the website. A Bugzilla Evangelism bug exists - Bug 120710 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120710> . The second problem you found (<http://www.voodooextreme.com>) also appears to be a JS problem with the website. The pictures below the -ve- headline are part of a table that is shown only if (navigator.appName.indexOf("Netscape") == -1) - which means you won't see it in Mozilla (hte indexOf is 0 in Mozilla). There is no Evangelism bug on this but the issue is the JS on the website, not Mozilla. The third problem you found (<http://www.4players.de>) I have not been able to see. I am not seeing a context menu in IE6. The site looks identical in IE6 and Mozilla. I am probably missing something obvious :-) The fourth problem you found (<http://www.little-idiot.de>) I also see. Looking at the JS code, I don't see the obvious flaw of voodooextreme - it looks like the authors will try not to use the IE DOM "document.all" with Mozilla. Since I don't do JS, there is not much more I can say. I checked the JavaScript Console and there was one error recorded ( Error: company has no properties Line:19). I would suggest you open up a bug in Bugzilla. At worst they turn it into an Evangelism bug and contact the website. The fifth problem you found (<http://www.puretec.de>) I also see. Unfortunately, it is also beyond my meager (non-existent) abilities. I would suggest another bug.

#150 Re: Re: Re: Re: javascript

by AgePee <Hanno.Pichler@web.de>

Friday February 8th, 2002 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

I wrote to the webmaster of <http://www.4players.de> and he told me that their script contains the inline frame (<iframe>) tag. He said that this is supported by Mozilla but it seems not to be supported when embedded in JavaScript. To see the context menu you have to scroll further down below the column in the middle titled "news flash" where the actual news-columns are. Inside of some of these short texts there are game titles written in bold and italic. There is the JavaScript. You have to click on it and a context menu should appear.

#102 Web Icons and Mozillazine

by Trucoto

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

Since I installed 0.9.8, the webicons stopped working. Still keeps those on the bookmarks, but in the URL bar any web displays that grey stick that I never knew what it means. And here in Mozillazine, again since 0.9.8, I see the pages covering only half of the available space in width. Anyone knows about any of these two issues?

#103 Re: Web Icons and Mozillazine

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 1:11 PM

Reply to this message

By default, Mozilla now only gets site icons (those specifically specified by <link rel="icon" href="whatever.ico">) and not Favicons (those stored at <http://www.example.com/favicon.ico>). To turn Favicons back on put the line user_pref("browser.chrome.favicons",true); in your user.js or prefs.js folder (located in your profile folder). BTW, the grey sticks are supposed to be bookmarks. :-)

Alex

#154 Re: Web Icons and Mozillazine

by baffoni

Saturday February 9th, 2002 10:52 AM

Reply to this message

So why don't we have a gui pref for turning this on/off? Seems to me that if you are going to turn off the most popular (currently) method of assigning icons to web pages, that you'd make it optional.

#176 Re: Web Icons and Mozillazine

by Trucoto

Tuesday February 12th, 2002 10:57 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I added that line to prefs.js, and only bugzilla shows an icon. The weird thing is that all was working OK with 0.9.7; after that, even Google or Yahoo they show the grey stick.

#107 so sad

by mr_spuck <stefanscheffler@gmx.net>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

oh, oh two hours and I've already found a site that crashes mozilla <http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020206/05201168_1.html>

but anyway great work.

#110 Re: so sad

by thegoldenear

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 4:12 PM

Reply to this message

stop gloating. that page works for me.

#111 is it flash?

by johann_p

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 4:40 PM

Reply to this message

this works for me -- maybe the crash is connected to the flash ad on that page?

#114 FIXING JAVA PROBLEMS

by starless

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 5:26 PM

Reply to this message

In a previous thread I posted a message about Mozilla 0.9.7 crashing on pages using Java.

The same thing was happening with 0.9.8. However, by following the following instructions the pages that previously crashed mozilla now work fine for me.

It appears the Mozilla team should be distributing a different plugin!

----------From: Jason Read (<jason@jasonandtrisha.com>) Subject: Re: JRE kills mozilla 0.9.x (linux) Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.java View this article only Date: 2001-10-11 10:27:31 PST

> LoadPlugin: failed to initialize shared library /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/java2 [/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/java2: cannot read file data: Is a directory]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just worked through this problem w/ RedHat 7.1. Here is the solution that worked for me:

1. Download latest JRE from <http://java.sun.com> 2. Extract to /usr/java/ (or whatever directory you want to use) 3. Go to the /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins directory 4. Remove the existing libjavaplugin_oji.so file and java2 directory 5. Create a symbolic link to the plugin in the jre directory as follows: ln -s /usr/java/jre1.3.1_01/plugin/i386/ns600/libjavaplugin_oji.so . 6. Close all mozilla sessions 7. Restart mozilla and close immediately ( this is due to some bug ) 8. Restart mozilla again 9. You should be ready to go at that point

For more info see the install directions for the jre at java.sun.com.

I guess the install performed by the plugin manager is faulty... I'm sure it will be fixed soon. But for now this appears to work.

--jr

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------

#116 but don't use Mozilla to visit java.sun.com!

by starless

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 5:30 PM

Reply to this message

To follow up my own post - if you need to download new JRE software you'll have to use an old version of Netscape (or IE) as mozilla will crash there (if you're having the same problems as me)!

#143 Edit > Preferences > Advanced > turn OFF java

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 5:03 PM

Reply to this message

Does it still crash with Mozilla 0.9.8 if you turn OFF Java technology? Edit > Preferences > Advanced... > uncheck Enable Java

#118 Sharing a Profile with 6.2.1

by TommyBee

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 7:06 PM

Reply to this message

I'd love to do more heavy-duty work with Mozilla 0.9.8, but most of my information (bookmarks, cookies, mail, etc.) are in a profile used by Netscape 6.2.1, and while I know that the two have essentially the same profile format, I'm concerned that swapping back and forth between the two might be dangerous. Has anyone had experience in doing so, especially with the Mac Classic version? Thanks.

#119 Re: Sharing a Profile with 6.2.1

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 8:24 PM

Reply to this message

It can cause problems with your theme and prefs, and if you hit a bad build it may cause your profile to be unusable. But you can also resurect a profile by creating a blank one, and copying the bookmark and cookie file and mail folder into your new profile (note, create the blank mail accounts before you copy the mail folder, and if you need your stored passwords look for xxxxxxx.s and copy the old one onto of the new one using the NEW ones name.

#131 Re: Sharing a Profile with 6.2.1

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 8:21 AM

Reply to this message

I changed the theme 3 or 4 times and the next time that profile didn't work. Mozilla stoped (Not responding status in windows) after selecting profile. It was only that profile that got damaged.

After uninstalling 0.98 and installing back to 0.97 everything worked fine again. Any ideas ?

I'm thinking of deleting the "chrome" directory in that profile.

#120 Instant Messenger for Mozilla

by Lancer

Wednesday February 6th, 2002 9:30 PM

Reply to this message

How can i add to Mozilla, the Instant messenger that comes with Netscape in the sidebar?

#126 Re: Instant Messenger for Mozilla. Nope.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

You can't. If you want Netscape's Instant Messenger in your sidebar then use Netscape.

--Asa

#127 heh... Netscape Does nt have Tabbed Browsing.

by Lancer

Thursday February 7th, 2002 3:07 AM

Reply to this message

...

#134 Re: heh... Netscape Does nt have Tabbed Browsing.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

I heard that Netscape was planning on releasing a newer version of Netscape 6 and don't tell anyone but I also heard that they are going to base it on Mozilla code ;-)

(for the humor impaired, I don't mean that I have inside info on any Netscape release plans, just suggesting that if you wait long enough then you can get a Netscape release with new Mozilla features.)

--Asa

#141 There's an applet on toc.oscar.aol.com

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 4:40 PM

Reply to this message

I wonder... would it be hard to whip up a sidebar that pulls the AOL Quick Buddy applet off toc.oscar.aol.com ?

#142 It's now bug 124292

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 4:59 PM

Reply to this message

I just filed RFE bug 124292 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124292> to create a sidebar tab for AOL Quick Buddy.

#159 not easy

by jsgremlin <joshua@bluestarstudio.com>

Saturday February 9th, 2002 8:30 PM

Reply to this message

I made an html-based tab to do exactly that. it worked except for the fact that switching browser windows or tabs or collapsing the tabs causes the whole thing to reload over again (i.e., the mini-page reloads and we are prompted to login again). Obviously, this makes it useless. I'm a XUL-less-than-novice, but the only way this will work is if the same applet persists when not visible *and* can display itself in multiple windows despite only actually running once. I can't imagine how this could be achieved, if it can be achieved at all.

#129 US Export Administration Regulations?

by johann_p

Thursday February 7th, 2002 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

What is that pathetic blurb about export limitations in the release page <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/> about? Does this mean that people in Cuba or Iran are not allowed to use Mozilla? Why? Says who? On what grounds?

#130 Re: US Export Administration Regulations?

by shin

Thursday February 7th, 2002 8:03 AM

Reply to this message

This is the sad reality of US Exports laws. Since Netscape and Mozilla.org are based in the US, they are not allowed to export to an arbitrary list of 'rogue countries'. I believe they'd have sanctions if they do allow exporting there, so they cover their ass.

#133 Re: Re: US Export Administration Regulations?

by johann_p

Thursday February 7th, 2002 9:03 AM

Reply to this message

This is so rediculous that its already funny again. As far as i am concerned US Export Administration can stick their regulations where the sun dont shine while I light myself one of those exquisite Cuban cigars.

#132 Re: US Export Administration Regulations?

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

When you for example download from Oracle you have to answere questions like these: * Are you a terrorist ? * Will you in some way damage USA ? ... or something like that.

Will FBI knock on the door 3 seconds later if I would answere yes =) ?

#140 Why are these sites so slow?

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Thursday February 7th, 2002 4:35 PM

Reply to this message

Following sites are horribly slow under 0.9.8 - scrolling takes forever and chugs up all the CPU power.

<http://www.go-mono.org>

<http://www.devx.com> (this one has been slow since 0.9.7)

I can't figure out go-mono.org, since it is nothing but tables.

#146 Re: Why are these sites so slow?

by paulm

Thursday February 7th, 2002 11:35 PM

Reply to this message

The thing causing the slowness on the go-mono site is likely the large, fixed background image.

#153 Re: Why are these sites so slow?

by pirat

Friday February 8th, 2002 3:08 PM

Reply to this message

No problems here, but I'm using nightly 2002020709.

#149 bookmark problem

by xerxes

Friday February 8th, 2002 9:38 AM

Reply to this message

With some bookmarks like <http://www.cnn.com/> or <http://www.slashdot.com/> I get the error. "The file / cannot be found. Please check the location and try again". Has anyone else run into this problem ?

#151 Re: bookmark problem

by pirat

Friday February 8th, 2002 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

Some time ago. I think it's the another case where cache cleanup helped.

#152 Re: Re: bookmark problem

by xerxes

Friday February 8th, 2002 2:20 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, thank you. When I cleared my cache the links worked.

#155 Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by imladris

Saturday February 9th, 2002 12:36 PM

Reply to this message

When I try to login to my Hotmail account, the following dialog appears. Does this mean that my password will be transmitted without encryption, or is it something else? Internet Explorer doesn't show anything like this:

[?]

Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection and could easily be read by a third party.

Are you sure you want to continue sending this information?

[Continue] [Cancel]

#156 Re: Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by bzbarsky

Saturday February 9th, 2002 1:56 PM

Reply to this message

> Does this mean that my password will be transmitted without encryption

That's precisely what it means.

#163 Re: Re: Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by imladris

Sunday February 10th, 2002 3:09 AM

Reply to this message

Then I suppose I won't ever use Mozilla to check my Hotmail account anymore. Shouldn't it be considered a bug if you can't use a secure connection to secure your data? I don't find anything about it at Bugzilla, though.

#164 Re: Re: Re: Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by SmileyBen

Sunday February 10th, 2002 3:46 AM

Reply to this message

Erm, it seems much more likely that IE doesn't bother to /warn/ you about this security problem, rather than not actually having it. And even if that isn't so - it's probably a Hotmail problem if they've created a site which can manage security in IE but not Moz.

#165 Re: Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by imladris

Sunday February 10th, 2002 6:06 AM

Reply to this message

It might be as you say. I just wrote a letter about this problem to Hotmail to get their opinion. They promised to answer within 24 hours, so I'll post it here when I get it. Could be interesting.

#172 Re: Re: Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by sleepy

Sunday February 10th, 2002 1:52 PM

Reply to this message

I've been using Hotmail with Mozilla for as long as Mozilla supports secure connection. This problem just came up in the last few months. It looks like Hotmail changed their connection somehow. Definitely not a Mozilla problem.

Notice Netscape 4 will warn you the same thing. Too bad IE doesn't care enough to warn you about it.

#173 Re: Re: Strange dialog on login to Hotmail

by imladris

Monday February 11th, 2002 9:01 AM

Reply to this message

I got an answer from Hotmail support (the Swedish one, maybe I would get a better answer if I asked the American). Their answer goes like this (my translation): "I have read your mail, and unfortunately we don't have any support for this. You should turn to Netscape for an answer." Not much help really. I thought they would know how browsers works on their site. Disappointing.

#166 Probably a hotmail problem?

by johann_p

Sunday February 10th, 2002 6:13 AM

Reply to this message

I dont know hotmail well and there seem to be several options how to log in. But this looks like a warning that mozilla shows due to the fact that the hotmail site changes from encrypted to unencrypted transmission. This is nothing mozilla doesnt support, its a warning to make you aware of the fact. It looks like IE doesnt show that warning. I took a quick look at the hotmail site and couldnt reproduce this: in my case hotmail switched from unencrypted to encrypted when i checked the highest security settting and thats ok, but the opposite of what you seem to have experienced.

#167 Re: Probably a hotmail problem?

by imladris

Sunday February 10th, 2002 9:22 AM

Reply to this message

The possibility to let the browser show you when you enter and leave a secure connection exists in both Mozilla and Internet Explorer. I've turned these dialogs off in both browsers, and earlier on (I don't know which milestone) Mozilla hasn't shown anything during login. The dialog that appears now isn't possible to turn off, as far as I understand it. While it says that the connection is secure, the strange part is that it also says that the login information won't be sent over the secure connection. (I also use the "public computer" option at the login screen, so pages won't be cached.)

#174 How to feel pain

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Monday February 11th, 2002 7:24 PM

Reply to this message

Run 0.9.8 on a PC with 32 meg of memory.

*shudder*

The processor (PII-233) appears to be up to the task - some slight sluggishness, but nothing terminal if you can't stand IE any more. But after three or four windows, the browser (and machine) goes into terminal thrashing and literally takes half an hour to come back ... Yep, that 'system requirements' should be taken seriously :-)

Now using K-Meleon. *sigh* This is my mother's machine - I should just go out and get more (72-pin, presumably) RAM for it ...

#177 How to clear the history in Moz 9.8.

by bsangam

Tuesday February 19th, 2002 10:19 AM

Reply to this message

Hello All,

How to clear the history in Moz 9.8. I am clicking on the Tasks / Tools / History. I am able to see many days of history. I would like to clear this history. Any help would be appreciated.

Sangam.

#178 Re: How to clear the history in Moz 9.8.

by klee

Tuesday February 19th, 2002 6:28 PM

Reply to this message

1. Press CTRL + H to enter the History editor.

2. Press CTRL + A to mark all entries.

3. Press Del to delete them.

HTH

#179 Re: Re: How to clear the history in Moz 9.8.

by bsangam

Wednesday February 20th, 2002 6:52 AM

Reply to this message

Klee,

It did work on Win2K machine. On my WinXP it cleared all the history except for the folders for the days. Thanks, for the info.

Sangam.

#181 test

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Friday March 1st, 2002 12:50 PM

Reply to this message

test