Netscape 7.0 Final News and Reviews

Saturday August 31st, 2002

Though Netscape releases no longer get the coverage that they used to, the launch of Netscape 7.0 was reported in several places on the Web. Articles can be found at AOL Time Warner, BBC News, CNET,,, Internet Magazine,, Internet Week, MacCentral, MacSlash, NewsFactor,, Reuters, Slashdot, The Register, Yahoo! Finance and ZDNet News.

Both CNET and eWEEK have reviews of Netscape 7.0 while TechTV features an editorial. If you're after user opinions, has a wide selection.

UPDATE! PC Magazine gave Netscape 7.0 four out of five, calling it "a sleek, fast, friendly browser that may make you consider switching from Microsoft Internet Explorer as your default browsing tool."

Finally, here's the solution to the biggest complaint about Netscape 7.0.

#49 Re: Re: Re: TE problems

by tny

Tuesday September 3rd, 2002 1:48 PM

You are replying to this message

Unfortunately, "display errors" is a subjective thing. Take the image alignment issue: I don't know about current versions of Mozilla, but earlier versions hewed so closely to the W3C specs on CSS that images tended to be aligned in such a way that whitespace appeared between images that were intended by the developer to touch. The code would validate fine, but the page would look like a pos. Now, how does Mozilla distinguish between pages with such sliced images that do not have the proper img[[.classname]] {vertical-align: bottom;} rule and pages which do not have sliced images and so do not need that css rule? I can think of ways of doing it, but they would be pretty computing intensive (map out the layout of the page and look for image elements that are adjacent on the page layout, then check the css page for the required rule, then send the error to the page: problem here is that you have to check each image to see if it is adjacent to other images on the page, and then make a kind of value judgment about at what density adjacent images become sliced images - and there will always be exceptions).

( [[ above is not CSS, but to indicate an optional selector. )

Sorry if this isn't clear, I'm just having a hard time explaining this. Maybe one of the coders could chime in?