Sunday February 23rd, 2003
#1 xmlimport test doesn't work on nightly
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 11:25 AM
#2 Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightly
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 11:56 AM
xmlDoc is only defined inside the importXML() function scope but being used from a different function..... Not a smart course of action. ;)
#11 Re: Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightly
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 8:06 PM
#12 Re: Re: Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightly
Monday February 24th, 2003 12:58 AM
Hm.... that's a good point; I can't recall how exactly that's hacked in for backwards compat...
#15 Spot the error :)
Monday February 24th, 2003 3:18 AM
Spot the error :)
alert('Your browser doesn't support this script'); return
alert("Your browser doesn't support this script"); return
Tuesday February 25th, 2003 1:58 AM
#13 Confirmed on Mozilla 1.2.1 Win98
Monday February 24th, 2003 2:54 AM
I experience the same error on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 (thus *not* a nighly)
#27 Re: Confirmed on Mozilla 1.2.1 Win98
Thursday February 27th, 2003 11:22 PM
It doesn't work on Moz 1.2.1 Win XP Home. It works on MSIE 6.0 SP1 but fails on Opera 7.02.
#18 Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightly
Monday February 24th, 2003 7:59 AM
It looks like their server's sending the wrong mime type. The apple.xml file that's being imported is identified as text/plain instead of text/xml.
If you save both import.html and apple.xml and then try the test locally it will pass since it's now loaded as text/xml. At least it did for me using "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130".
#26 Re: Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightly
Wednesday February 26th, 2003 9:38 AM
I don't know whether this makes a difference, but the apple.xml file is also missing the <?xml?> declaration.
#3 Phoenix works wih DHTML test
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 1:48 PM
With the Phoenix Build 20030221 everything works as it should. Maybe this is Mozilla specific problem?
#4 Re: Phoenix works wih DHTML test
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 2:25 PM
Is Phoenix better than Mozilla?
#5 Re: Re: Phoenix works wih DHTML test
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 2:45 PM
Is an apple better than an orange?
#7 Re: Re: Phoenix works wih DHTML test
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 2:48 PM
"Is Phoenix better than Mozilla?"
#6 Re: Phoenix works wih DHTML test
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 2:47 PM
"With the Phoenix Build 20030221 everything works as it should. Maybe this is Mozilla specific problem?"
Unlikely. That said, I can't reproduce the scrollbar problem described with Mozilla 1.3 Beta (the test was conducted with 1.2.1).
#20 Re: Phoenix works wih DHTML test
Monday February 24th, 2003 10:28 AM
Yeah, I fixed this early in 1.3. We should be perfect on those tests now :-)
#9 Works with [newer] Mozilla builds
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 4:06 PM
I assume this problem was fixed sometime between 1.2.1 and 1.3b, since the author of the article is using the former, and IME the latter works perfectly. Any problems that Mozilla has with this would exist in Phoenix as well.
#8 Another nail in Safari's coffin :-)
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 3:45 PM
I wonder what Stevie has to say about this? Heh!! Heh!! GECKO RULES!! :-)
Sunday February 23rd, 2003 6:09 PM
Maybe you could take a more mature attitude. This is good news for gecko, but it doesn't mean Safari is awful.
Your attempts at being funny don't work either.
#17 Good result for Safari (and therefore KDE)
Monday February 24th, 2003 6:21 AM
Safari coming second in this test is a very good result for such a new product. I say a very well earned Well Done! to all the KDE and Apple developers that made Safari possible!
#19 Re: Good result for Safari (and therefore KDE)
Monday February 24th, 2003 10:16 AM
"Safari coming second in this test is a very good result for such a new product."
Well, Safari may be new but the technologies they are using are anything but new. KHTML has been around for years and while I'm sure Apple's done a lot of work to get it working as well as it is today (especially, probably in the JS implementation,) it's certainly not "new". I think that I've seen KHTML development mailing list posts as old as 4 years and Konqueror (a shipping product based on those core technologies) has been going out to decent usersbase for at least a few years.
#21 Re: Good result for Safari (and therefore KDE)
Monday February 24th, 2003 10:31 AM
how about the Mozilla developers whose code made it into Safari? :-) Yes, Safari uses some Mozilla code and ideas. This is a good thing. I wish we had more communication between KHTML and Mozilla...
#14 IE 6.0 SR-1 on Win98 works fine
Monday February 24th, 2003 3:00 AM
Although Mozilla is definitely a better browser than IE, tests on that site were performed with IE 5.2 for Mac.
I've tried the same tests with IE 6.0 SP1 on Win98 and all of them worked fine (there's not even the minor problem experienced with the "Moving a DHTML Layer" test).
#16 Re: IE 6.0 SR-1 on Win98 works fine
Monday February 24th, 2003 5:54 AM
You missing the point. They were comparing Mac browsers, not Windows browsers, therefore IE 6 SP1 from Win98 is irrelevant to the discussion.
#22 Still an interesting data point
Monday February 24th, 2003 3:11 PM
Thats not to say that I actually like or use IE (except when I *have* to, because of site inadequacies or because the site requires NTLM authorization). However, I am happy to hear that at least the latest Windows version has improved the standards compliance.
And we all know that it is likely that the mozilla problem will be fixed within a month, whereas a similar problem in IE (even the Windows version which gets far more love from MS than the Mac version) wouldn't be fixed for over a year, possibly longer.
#23 Already fixed
Monday February 24th, 2003 4:06 PM
"And we all know that it is likely that the mozilla problem will be fixed within a month,"
It was actually fixed already in the early 1.3 builds, but the tester was using an older version of Mozilla.
#25 So how come
Wednesday February 26th, 2003 2:15 AM
I still have to switch to IE to do my internet banking?