MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.1 Alpha Released

Tuesday June 11th, 2002

mozilla.org today released the first post-1.0 milestone of Mozilla, Mozilla 1.1 Alpha. This release is coming off the trunk, and is not part of the 1.0 branch. There will likely be a 1.0.1 release off the branch at a later date. (Confused about how milestone numbers work after 1.0? Take a look at the Roadmap for a clearer picture.)

1.1a has a number of performance and UI fixes that took place on the trunk but didn't make it to the branch, like fastloading XUL, improved download manager control, and a number of other fixes. To see a more complete list of what's new, check out the Release Notes, or grab a build for yourself from either the Releases Page or the FTP Site and try it out.


#1 cool

by techn9ne

Tuesday June 11th, 2002 5:49 PM

Reply to this message

I just downloaded 1.1a and I like it =)

#2 Re: very cool

by Radiowriter

Tuesday June 11th, 2002 5:57 PM

Reply to this message

I agree!

#3 What changes have been made to D/L Manager

by _rgw_ <webbs@fayette.net>

Tuesday June 11th, 2002 6:44 PM

Reply to this message

I haven't used the trunk lately, what has exactly changed?

#4 Re:

by PsychoCS

Tuesday June 11th, 2002 7:01 PM

Reply to this message

Too numerous to mention. I'd download it if you're interested.

#5 New things

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Tuesday June 11th, 2002 11:00 PM

Reply to this message

I've read through what's new and I am a bit confused.

Download manager has been enabled with "many improvements". However, I don't see any improvements at all.

DHTML performance enhancements are in, but I am not sure what they are.

They claim startup performance enhancements, but I don't see it at all.

Browser tabs now close left to right - nice.

Mozilla's drag and drop support "has been greatly improved" - I am not sure what that means.

#6 New Things

by flux

Tuesday June 11th, 2002 11:40 PM

Reply to this message

I'm really not trying to be patronizing, forgive me if I comes across as such.

> Download manager has been enabled with "many improvements". However, I don't see any improvements at all.

You didn't use the original implementation a lot then...it's still not bug free, but I can deal. > They claim startup performance enhancements, but I don't see it at all.

Then you haven't looked at any DHTML heavy sites. I skipped 1.0, but RC2 was still dog slow at DHTML. The trunk builds have been almost as fast as IE, sometimes faster depending on the operation for awhile. 1.1 which is downloading now should reflect the improvements. Head over to bodytag.org or xlat.assembler.org with the older versions and 1.1 to see the incredible improvements in performance.

> Mozilla's drag and drop support "has been greatly improved" - I am not sure what that means.

Try dragging around bookmarks in 1.0...frustrating no? Then again, the majority of IE users don't even know about how handy and transparent it's drag and drop stuff is for the most part, although IE6 is still a bit annoying in this department as well.

Search for all the above terms in bugzilla to get the gory details.

#21 Bookmark dragging

by leafdigital

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 6:13 AM

Reply to this message

This rules! Now, all they need is right-click on bookmarks so you can delete them...

The HTML mail thing (view as simple HTML or text) is the main improvement IMO... except that I don't use the mail client. Still it is a top feature and once the mail client gets some of the necessary features that it's currently missing (which Outlook Express has) I am now looking forward to being able to switch.

--sam

#26 Re: Bookmark dragging

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 7:11 AM

Reply to this message

"... once the mail client gets some of the necessary features that it's currently missing (which Outlook Express has) I am now looking forward to being able to switch."

Out of interest, which features are those?

Alex

#28 *my* main missing OE feature: hotmail/msn synch.

by djk

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 8:10 AM

Reply to this message

bug 25694: HTTP e-mail server support

I want that so I can syncronize my hotmail/msn account(s) with a mail client other than LookOut.

3 SourceForge projects dealing with the HTTPMail protocol: <http://sourceforge.net/projects/httpmail> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/hotwayd> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/hotpop3>

#31 OE features

by leafdigital

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 9:32 AM

Reply to this message

Just to clarify, when I said 'necessary' I meant 'for me'. Obviously most people don't need those features. These are just the features it needs to have before I'll switch over.

That out of the way... the key ones are:

* Must support multiple email addresses for sending without adding multiple receive accounts (i.e. I want to be able to send mail as <x@leafdigital.com> and <y@leafdigital.com>, both of which should go via the same SMTP server etc obviously, and I should be able to select this by dropdown on the 'compose message' pane)

I believe you have to hack this in OE by creating the account with bogus POP details and then turning off a 'include this account when receiving mail' checkbox. A similar hack in Mozilla would be okay, as long as it doesn't end up creating yet another folder tree to clutter the UI, which brings me to:

* Must support multiple email accounts with same set of folders (i.e. I want my two POP accounts to deliver mail to the same inbox, all sent mail to be in same sent-mail, etc.)

* Must not crash when it tries to import my OE mailbox. :>

(The last one I'm not too serious about, as I haven't actually tried mail since 0.9.9 and I am sure they have fixed whatever bug that was. I think there are bug numbers for the other two but I'm not sure whether there is any real intention to implement either behaviour at the moment.)

--sam

#40 Re: OE features

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 12:25 PM

Reply to this message

>* Must support multiple email addresses for sending without >adding multiple receive accounts (i.e. I want to be able to >send mail as <x@leafdigital.com> and <y@leafdigital.com>, both >of which should go via the same SMTP server etc obviously, >and I should be able to select this by dropdown on the >'compose message' pane)

This would be useful to me as well; is there an RFE bug filed for it? (if I were not in a hurry right now, I'd search Bugzilla, but as is, got to run)

#65 Re: What about Calendar

by flacco

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:45 AM

Reply to this message

>* Must support multiple email addresses for sending without >adding multiple receive accounts (i.e. I want to be able to >send mail as <x@leafdigital.com> and <y@leafdigital.com>, both >of which should go via the same SMTP server etc obviously, >and I should be able to select this by dropdown on the >'compose message' pane)

Oh, for christ's sake yes, a thousand times yes. This is really annoying when you have to have several outgoing e-mail addresses...

#54 Re: Re: Is the profile stable?

by baffoni

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 7:08 PM

Reply to this message

>* Must support multiple email accounts with same set of folders (i.e. I want my two POP >accounts to deliver mail to the same inbox, all sent mail to be in same sent-mail, etc.)

Can't you already do this? Just go to mail window, go to edit mail and news preferences, select the "server settings" options under the first POP account, highlight and copy into the paste buffer the local directory path, then go to the server options for the second account and paste in the path. Does anyone see any reason that this wouldn't work?

#63 setting server folders to the same...

by leafdigital

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:26 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know if that would work or not, but it sounds dodgy to me :)

--sam

#43 Re: Re: Bookmark dragging

by tny

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

The one I need is drag & drop a group of messages; I like to archive my messages separately on CD, so I select a bunch of them and drag them to a folder in Windows. This is the ONLY reason that the only mail client that deletes my email from the server is OE6. I use Moz most of the time, but I archive my email from OE6.

If I knew how to write it, I would, honestly; but that's a level of programming I simply can't handle.

#39 Re: New Things

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 11:25 AM

Reply to this message

>>Download manager has been enabled with "many improvements". >>However, I don't see any improvements at all.

>You didn't use the original implementation a lot then... >it's still not bug free, but I can deal

Ah, I did see the original Download manager and I can't think of what they improved. Can you point it out?

>> They claim startup performance enhancements, >>but I don't see it at all.

>Then you haven't looked at any DHTML heavy sites

What does startup performance has to do with DHTML heavy sites?

#47 Re: Re: New Things

by bzbarsky

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:03 PM

Reply to this message

> Ah, I did see the original Download manager and I can't think of what they > improved. Can you point it out?

Sure. Deleting entries now no longer takes forever. There are many fewer cases in which download manager shows completely bogus data. The display (progressmeters) actually updates correctly. There are no longer continuous attempts to stat() files on disk when you click them in the download manager.

There are more, but I don't actually use download manager so I can't recall what the other fixes are and don't care enough to look it up.

A simple query on bugs in the "Download Manager" component fixed in the 1.1 cycle should show you what the changes have been....

#50 Drag'N'Drag

by hosking

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:49 PM

Reply to this message

In 1.0 I cant Drag'N'Drag Images from Mozilla to photoshop and I can copy images to the clip board are these fixed?

#51 Drag'N'Drag

by hosking

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:51 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry that should be "I can't copy images to the clip board"

#7 Important Bugs to sovle

by jobe451

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 1:45 AM

Reply to this message

#8 Re: Important Bugs to sovle

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

A view doesn't go nearly as far as a fix. Got code? :)

--Asa

#27 Sorry...

by jobe451

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 7:12 AM

Reply to this message

... I'm not that skilled. At least not that skilled as R. Saravanan is from the Enigmail-Project who offers to submit a big part of the code for the PHP-Thing <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22687>

I just wanted to give the Mozilla-Drivers some Feedback from the view of a Heavy-Mozilla-User to help them to set the priorities ;-)

cheers jobe

#9 use 1.0 or 1.1 alpha as stable browser

by joel

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 1:59 AM

Reply to this message

should I use mozilla 1.0 or mozilla 1.1 alpha as stable browser? (ok, alpha doesn't sounds stable, but... :))

#10 "alpha doesn't sounds stable" - exactly

by thegoldenear

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 2:26 AM

Reply to this message

"This 1.1a release is from the less conservative (and probably less stable) Mozilla development trunk and is intended as a checkpoint for gathering feedback and crash data. So if you use these Alpha builds be warned that they are unlikely to be as stable as Mozilla 1.0 or the upcoming 1.0.x releases. But the 1.1a releases will have new features and big improvements to performance so give them a try and don't forget to send in any TalkBack reports."

#19 Re: use 1.0 or 1.1 alpha as stable browser

by rtvkuijk

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:21 AM

Reply to this message

It should be fairly as stable as the trunk. Stable enough for me for daily use.

#34 use 1.0 as stable browser

by warpoz

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

I encountered "a lot" of crashes on this NT machine since I switched from 1.0 to 1.1a. Even my old trusty <http://www.destandaard.be> news site gives me sometimes errors (I guess that was long gone since the M** days) But each time I think: "if I don't sent these talkbacks... maybe nobody will"

#11 Running both?

by Shimrod

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:04 AM

Reply to this message

Has anyone tried running multiple versions of mozilla on the same system? I want to be able to use 1.0 for testing my pages (since it's the build that many new browser products will be based on), but I would also like to run 1.1a to continue testing the newest release. Has anyone tried this? Can you share preferences/email accounts/etc between multiple versions?

#13 Re: Running both?

by Zpottr

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:36 AM

Reply to this message

You can very well run two (or many more :-) ) versions of Moz on your machine. just: 1) I wouldn't run them all at the same time 2) *Do not* share accounts. Install into a different dir, and start Moz with

"path-to-mozmozilla.exe" -profilemanager .

Then make a new account, e.g. Shimrod_1.1A and re-enter your info. You can copy things loke bookmark file and such. You can even configure the Moz shortcut to start with this specific account, I just don't remember how. Searching google or so should help.

#74 Testing = Using

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:32 PM

Reply to this message

you can even run 2 versions at the same time, but be carefull, if you have Mozilla-versions before 1.0RC3, because they don't set a lock on the profiles.

#15 Re: Running both?

by TimHunt <T.J.Hunt@open.ac.uk>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:42 AM

Reply to this message

Install the different Mozilla versions into different places on your hard disc, and use profile manager to create different profiles for the different versions and you should be fine.

Tim.

#16 Re: Running both?

by turi

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 4:03 AM

Reply to this message

Oh well, you take a certain risk sharing you're profiles among different versions. Nonetheless, that's what I'm doing all the time to test nightlies. Normally I simply copy all the profile data into a backup folder and try the new build. Sometimes you can loose some information. If you go back to an older build you loose for example all you're group-bookmarks, they get converted to normal folders.

#18 Re: Re: Running both?

by Zpottr

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 4:39 AM

Reply to this message

QUOTE:If you go back to an older build you loose for example all you're group-bookmarks, they get converted to normal folders.:QUOTE

Which is easily fixed by hand editing the bookmark source, BTW. Take a look if this gives you trouble; insert 'FOLDER_GROUP="true"' into the line that also has the name of the bookmark folder, et voila.

#41 Re: Re: Re: Running both?

by turi

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 12:29 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, it's just annoying

#17 for simple pages, does this matter?

by thegoldenear

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 4:15 AM

Reply to this message

"I want to be able to use 1.0 for testing my pages"

I would have thought (and it would be good to get clarification on this) that if you're using just HTML 4.01 and CSS1 that rendering using the Gecko in Mozilla 1.0.x and 1.1.x (KMeleon 0.7+, Beonex 0.8+, Netscape 7+ etcetera) would be the same wouldn't it? as presumably development of Gecko's rendering abilities as far as actual visible screen layout for these technologies is finished

#22 Re: for simple pages, does this matter?

by leafdigital

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 6:17 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it's true that Mozilla's rendering is fairly stable, but there are still a few remaining bugs in CSS1 support. Additionally, if you are doing CSS layout there is little chance that you will stay entirely within CSS2.

I think it's unlikely that any normal page will work in 1.1 and not 1.0 (or even in Netscape 6) but it is probably just possible. Basically if you're paranoid it might be worth testing, especially if/when a significant number of people begin using Mozilla 1.0 rendering engine. (In other words, if AOL switch to it.)

--sam

#23 typo, 'little chance that ... within CSS1' (n/t)

by leafdigital

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 6:18 AM

Reply to this message

nt

#12 Better autocomplete? Better Bookmarks?

by betz

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:07 AM

Reply to this message

Whats better? Mozilla still displays a "host not found" Url before a valid URL! I can see DHTML Improvements, but folders in the personal toolbar are STILL highlighted when I choose a bookmark! (but nice drag and drop fixes)

#14 Oh baby

by Zpottr

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:42 AM

Reply to this message

See Mail&News -> View -> View message body as -> Original HTML | Simple HTML | As plain tekst

That's fantastic. No more bastard spammers being able to see if I read their shitty messages.

Also, speed fixes are very noticable. And I was thinking 1.0 would be my preferred Moz for some time :-)

#48 Re: Oh baby

by Radiowriter

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

Zpottr, I'm with you! I don't think the html gives us away to the spammers, though. It's the images they include that the mail program has to fetch from their servers. Mozilla has fixed this in the 1.1 Alpha, too. In Preferences under Security & Privacy | Images, you have the option to not allow images to be downloaded in Mail & Newsgroups. Excellent!

This release seems to be at least as stable as Mozilla 1.0. Can anyone give me a reason why I should not uninstall 1.0 and use this build everyday?

Thanks... Radiowriter

#20 Pause

by VlaadtI

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 6:08 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry to all those people who prefer the progress window for their downloads, but I freaking love the download manager.

One thing troubles me, however... I remember when the download manager was first introduced, and the best feature it had was the pause/resume button.

So where'd it go???!!! Plz, gimme it back! :D

#24 Pause

by VlaadtI

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 6:40 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry to all those people who prefer the progress window for their downloads, but I freaking love the download manager.

One thing troubles me, however... I remember when the download manager was first introduced, and the best feature it had was the pause/resume button.

So where'd it go???!!! Plz, gimme it back! :D

#37 Re: Pause

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

Why feel sorry for them. They're free to continue using the progress window for their downloads.

--Asa

#25 Lots of Regression off AddressBook in 1.1 Alpha

by youying <youying@gcn.net.tw>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 7:09 AM

Reply to this message

In one day, I found 4 major regression of AddressBook. I filed them as bug#151079,bug#151083,bug#151084,bug#151162. All of them are regression...:-(

Please improve AddressBook of Mozilla. It's buggy...

#29 Viewing HTML Mails als Plaintext ... How??

by murphee

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

The Mozilla team has done a great job, as always, but: how can I tell Mail to display HTML Mails as PlainText? This is a killer feature... but I can't find any setting in the Preferences Dialog;

I also looked into the prefs.js and prefernces.js ... but couldnt find anything...

Does anybody know how to set that?

Thanks, murphee

#30 Re: Viewing HTML Mails als Plaintext ... How??

by MXN

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 9:04 AM

Reply to this message

In Mail/News, go to View | Message As | Plain Text.

- MXN <http://mxn.netfirms.com/index.html>

#32 Thanks!

by murphee

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 9:34 AM

Reply to this message

I knew it had to be something simple, since I couldnt find it...

#33 Intuitive

by beastie

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 9:38 AM

Reply to this message

I too looked for this in the prefs dialog when I first heard about it. Nice to see everything's in a standard place.

#45 Re: Intuitive

by Zpottr

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:30 PM

Reply to this message

I agree; the way it is implemented now, it looks like it only applies to the current message, in which case the feature would be utterly useless ofcourse ;-) IMHO, it deserves a place in prefs. Maybe even in account prefs, so your spam-free work account can still receive nicely ;-) formatted OE mails from your cubicle neighbour while on your 'home' account you can see all those hot free t33n e-mails in plain text, hehe...

#42 Whose website?

by skeeter

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 12:41 PM

Reply to this message

Hi After following the link to 'your' website and reading the comments:

"If you donít like the design of my website, try this solution, or go to someone elseís website!"

My question is whose, Eric Meyer's <http://www.meyerweb.com/e…css/edge/popups/demo.html> You should a least put in comments in your code if you pinch someones design to such and extent.

#66 Re: Whose website?

by MXN

Thursday June 13th, 2002 6:05 AM

Reply to this message

Well, actually, I gave him a small mention at the bottom of the page, and the JavaScript code used to change the theme of the website (which is now broken :^( ) contains his copyright notice. But you're right. Thanks for noticing that. I guess I overlooked that part.

- MXN

#67 Add a link

by skeeter

Thursday June 13th, 2002 8:17 AM

Reply to this message

Hi Hope you get your js straightenend out. Funny though that is the whole point of the CSS demos at Eric Meyer's site. Not using javascript only pure css for pop-ups.

I only know him from common newsgroups on CSS. He doesn't mind the borrowing or spreading of things he's worked out, make a link to him. Did you know that he is now an official evangelist for Netscape? Here is a link to an interview with him if your interested <http://www.digital-web.co…s/interview_2002-06.shtml>

#77 Re: Add a link

by MXN

Thursday June 13th, 2002 6:50 PM

Reply to this message

Well, the only JavaScript I used was to theme the site, which is what he did on his main site: <http://www.meyerweb.com/> Also, I did link to him; it's at the bottom, and also in a few of my blog entries. And I did change my templates so that they give credit to Eric Meyer towards the top of the page. Thanks for pointing out these things; I'm relatively new at web design, so please forgive me if I've broken every rule in the Golden Book of Rules for Web Design. (I probably have so far.)

I'm going to do a major site redesign sometime this week and next. This next design won't "pinch" so many ideas from Eric's site, and it'll actually be usable to those using Linux, thanks to Jan Schnackenberg, who e-mailed me about more problems w/ my site. Well, I guess that ends the off-topic discussion here.

- MXN

#35 off topic

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 10:10 AM

Reply to this message

I hate the new download manager. How do you turn it off? I can't seem to find anything in the prefs about it. Thanks.

#36 title

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

Oops...Mozilla fills in an ancient message title every time at Mozillazine. My above post isn't really "off topic" (I think, at least).

#49 Stupidest Mozilla bug of the all

by flux

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:17 PM

Reply to this message

Until they put in the autocomplete parameter that was my most hated bug of all time...now it's up to the web developers. *cough* That is unless much complaining on this bug <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46845> is listened too.

Asa, please add the autocomplete="off" parameter the titles field's input tag!

#60 Wrong bug number

by jesse <jruderman@hmc.edu>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 1:44 AM

Reply to this message

Filling in the post title at mozillazine is <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85777>

#38 Re: off topic

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 10:23 AM

Reply to this message

Edit|Preferences|Navigator|Downloads.

--Asa

#44 thanks

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

Now why didn't I see that?

#75 Testing = Using

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:35 PM

Reply to this message

latest nighties allow you to disable it in prefs -> navigator -> downloads. The "progress dialog" is the traditional way (which also allows resume...)

#46 UI Bummer.

by whiprush <jorge@whiprush.org>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 4:22 PM

Reply to this message

Shouldn't view Messages as Plain Text/Simple HTML/Normal HTML be in the preferences? When I first read about this feature, I directly went to where I can choose my Send format, in the Mail section of the preferences. Made sense to me ... pick send format from there, surely changing receive format should be somewhere close. I never did find it until someone mentioned it in this thread - I believe the devs call that 'discoverability.'

Maybe in the message display preferences in the Mail section. I mean, I can change the font, font size, blah blah in there, shouldn't I be able to choose what format I display from that section?

Either way, lovin' 1.1a .... good job guys.

#56 Re: UI Bummer.

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 10:42 PM

Reply to this message

"Shouldn't view Messages as Plain Text/Simple HTML/Normal HTML be in the preferences?"

I don't think so. It's much easier to temporarily switch between views on the menu bar if you have to. Foe example, if you have it set to plain text, and the message doesn't contain a plain text part, you need to switch to one of the HTML views to actually read it.

It'd be massively annoying to have to go all the way into the prefs to modify this to just read one email, then go back and change it back afterwards.

/mike

#62 Re: UI Bummer.

by eiseli

Thursday June 13th, 2002 2:32 AM

Reply to this message

Sure. But the general behavior should be in the pref dialog.

#64 Should be in both

by leafdigital

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:31 AM

Reply to this message

Basically the prefs dialog is pretty horrific (though it's ok as an advanced interface) and I agree that the place it's currently in is a good one.

However I looked in the prefs dialog first too... so I think it should be simply in both places (probably under 'View format' in the current tree structure, modulo reorganisation). Easy solution.

--sam

#52 Some preferences are blank in 1.1a

by jhatax <manoj_r_mehta@yahoo.co.uk>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 5:53 PM

Reply to this message

Hi, I don't know if others have noticed this but in my build 2002061108 (WinXP), some preferences have no text. Take for instance under Preferences -> Navigator -> Download

On further investigation, I notice that there is no text for any preference that has a radio button. So all the preferences where I need to choose one out of multiple possible prefs have no text for the options. I think this is a preferences dialog bug in XUL, so it could be a bug in my XUL...

- Manoj

#55 not easy

by jsgremlin <joshua@bluestarstudio.com>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 8:31 PM

Reply to this message

I find this only happens with some themes in 1.0 (for me, IESkin). Try switching back to classic or modern if you haven't already.

#72 Re: not easy

by jhatax <manoj_r_mehta@yahoo.co.uk>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 2:02 PM

Reply to this message

yeah, I think it is a skin issue too because right now, I am using the IESkin! That was a good catch, thanks!

#76 Testing = Using

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 3:38 PM

Reply to this message

do you have the IE-Theme installed? It had a bug with this in previous versions

#53 Some preferences are blank in 1.1a

by jhatax <manoj_r_mehta@yahoo.co.uk>

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 6:01 PM

Reply to this message

Hi, I don't know if others have noticed this but in my build 2002061108 (WinXP), some preferences have no text. Take for instance under Preferences -> Navigator -> Download

On further investigation, I notice that there is no text for any preference that has a radio button. So all the preferences where I need to choose one out of multiple possible prefs have no text for the options. I think this is a preferences dialog bug in XUL, so it could be a bug in my XUL...

- Manoj

#57 "Left to right" What does that mean?

by Slapstick

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 11:45 PM

Reply to this message

What does it mean when they say "Browser tabs now close left to right" ??? I can't notice any difference in tab behaviour between Moz 1.0 and 1.1alpha. Could someone enlighten me?

#58 Location bar i still not ready

by Slapstick

Thursday June 13th, 2002 12:16 AM

Reply to this message

It still (in some cases) favours lesser pages over the main page of a website. Eg it may favour "<http://www.someplace.com/dir/foo/bar/article.html>" over "<http://www.someplace.com>" when I type in "www.som". This is frustrating, because the benefits of autocompletion are totally lost when I have to either type in the entire url or accept the suggested url and delete half of it. This is especially annoying if I often frequent <http://www.someplace.com> and the location bar history is full of pages on that site.

#61 Re: "Left to right" What does that mean?

by eiseli

Thursday June 13th, 2002 2:30 AM

Reply to this message

This means that after closing the current tab, next tab that gets focus is left/right to the now closed tab.

#59 Mapi32.dll

by ed_welch

Thursday June 13th, 2002 1:23 AM

Reply to this message

That old bug is back, where it deletes mapi32.dll. I recommend you make this file read-only before you install 1.1

#68 Why viewing HTML Mails as Plaintext important

by roman

Thursday June 13th, 2002 8:20 AM

Reply to this message

Would somebody please explain the importance of this feature?

#70 Privacy, security, and control

by leafdigital

Thursday June 13th, 2002 9:42 AM

Reply to this message

It's important for three main reasons:

1. Privacy

If you view an HTML mail, the attacker (person who sent the mail) can determine whether you have read the mail because your browser will send image requests for any images in the mail.

2. Security

Displaying HTML mail means that the entire 'bug capacity' of a huge rendering engine is available to any potential attacker. Any security-related bug in any part of the rendering engine is available for exploitation by emails. Plain-text display, by contrast, is much simpler for the browser and provides a much smaller subset of browser capabilities to be exploited.

(For example, every recent Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express exploit has required HTML email. Including support for full, unfiltered HTML display in an email client is absolutely asking for trouble.)

3. Control

Displaying email as plain text, or stripping formatting attributes from HTML (as the 'simple html' view does) means that you the reader has control over the appearance of your mail. If some *imbecile* decides to send you email with a stupid squared-paper background, or with blue on purple text, that's fine, because you don't see it.

This is important for email because most people read a lot of email so it has to be as efficient for them as possible.

Both the 'simple HTML' and 'plain text' views accomplish these goals, in a slightly different manner and to a slightly different extent. With these features, Mozilla may be able to become a relatively secure email client.

--sam

#69 Original, Simple HTML

by zevious

Thursday June 13th, 2002 8:56 AM

Reply to this message

What exactly is the difference in these 2 settings?

#71 API compatibility with 1.0?

by jingjoe <pongtawat@thai.com>

Thursday June 13th, 2002 11:27 AM

Reply to this message

Just wonder if all the stuffs developed for 1.0 (e.g. themes, XUL apps) will works on 1.1alpha (and later, 1.1)?

#73 yes they should

by niner

Thursday June 13th, 2002 2:16 PM

Reply to this message

It was one of the, if not _the_ major goals of 1.0 to introduce this kind of backwards compatibility known as frozes APIs.

#78 Forms being submitted twice

by jhatax <manoj_r_mehta@yahoo.co.uk>

Monday June 17th, 2002 4:12 PM

Reply to this message

I thought this bug would be fixed in new releases of Mozilla but 1.1a still has the bug in which forms are submitted twice. A case in point is my earlier message to this group that got posted twice. If this continues, I don't think many people will feel safe using Mozilla for any form related transactions on the web (everyone, read news only please on the web, stop shopping online cause that uses forms, stop posting on newsgroups cause that uses forms too) especially for Credit Card transactions. I know Asa monitors this feedback page so I'd appreciate some attention being given to the following bugs on bugzilla (search form twice) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137936>

Thanks,

- Manoj