MozillaZine

Full Article Attached 1.3 Candidate Builds Available for Testing

Saturday March 8th, 2003

Candidate builds of Mozilla 1.3 are now available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. Please download and test these builds to ensure that 1.3 is the greatest milestone to date. Read the full article for more information and download links from Asa Dotzler.


#1 Windows zip file download

by GAThrawn

Saturday March 8th, 2003 1:54 PM

Reply to this message

Or if you prefer to just unzip your Mozilla, rather than going through all the hassle of an installer, use this link <http://komodo.mozilla.org…-05-1.3/mozilla-win32.zip>

#2 re: Windows zip file download - or talkback

by GAThrawn

Saturday March 8th, 2003 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

Or the talkback enabled windows zip file, here: <http://komodo.mozilla.org…ozilla-win32-talkback.zip>

#3 two things...

by durbacher

Saturday March 8th, 2003 2:19 PM

Reply to this message

Bug 192914 is blocking1.3+ and has r/sr/a for already two days but is still not checked in. Did somebody just forget it?

Of bug 191938 there are four duplicates found during the last three days but it has only been fixed on the 1.4a trunk because of regression risks. Ok, I have to accept that (although the patch has been posted even before 1.3b). But I think the bug (black scrollbars in print preview) looks really bad and deserves at least to be mentioned in the release notes to prevent many more duplicates. The duplicates are likely to come because people - and the bug submission page - only search the *open* bugs for already submitted bugs before reporting.

#4 Bug 192914

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday March 8th, 2003 2:54 PM

Reply to this message

"Bug 192914 is blocking1.3+ and has r/sr/a for already two days but is still not checked in. Did somebody just forget it?"

According to Bonsai, the fix for bug 192914 was checked in to the 1.3 branch on Thursday:

When: 03/06/2003 21:43

Who: peterlubczynski%netscape.com

File: mozilla/ modules/ plugin/ base/ src/ nsPluginNativeWindowWin.cpp

Rev: 1.2.16.1

Branch: MOZILLA_1_3_BRANCH

+/-: 26/0

Description: Fixing bug 192914, prevent Real from recursivly dispatching events, <r=smontagu@netscape.com>, <sr=bzbarsky@mit.edu>

Alex

#6 Sorry, my fault:

by durbacher

Saturday March 8th, 2003 5:47 PM

Reply to this message

I wanted do be sure and checked the corresponding file in lxr - but in the trunk... So of course in the 1.3 branch this is fixed, ok.

#45 Re: Sorry, my fault:

by bzbarsky

Sunday March 9th, 2003 11:57 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, it better not be fixed on trunk -- that patch is no good for the trunk. ;)

#58 ...and I really suck...

by durbacher

Monday March 10th, 2003 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Seems like '[fixed1.3]' was already on the Status Whiteboard when I posted my initial comment. Checked the (wrong) source, but didn't read that entry! I think it was very late at night where I live... ...somehow my working hours shifted from something that included a bit of my European daylight to something that is more like synchronized with Pacific Coast daylight...

#5 Ignired bug #192858

by vgendler

Saturday March 8th, 2003 4:51 PM

Reply to this message

#8 Re: Ignored bug #192858

by rdebay

Saturday March 8th, 2003 6:54 PM

Reply to this message

Go to the bug and mark it ? for blocking 1.3.

#9 Re: Re: Ignored bug #192858

by vgendler

Saturday March 8th, 2003 7:06 PM

Reply to this message

It is marked long time ago.

#12 Probably shouldn't be a blocker anyway

by mesostinky

Saturday March 8th, 2003 8:48 PM

Reply to this message

At least there doesn't appear to be a measurable number of bug reports for this problem. A bug is a bug, but fixing mozilla so that it works on a serialz/cracks site probably doesn't rate blocker status.

#7 double the fun!

by wtmcgee

Saturday March 8th, 2003 5:55 PM

Reply to this message

great! not only is 1.3 an excellent build, camino will be using the codebase soon, so everyone wins.

#10 bug 194994

by mlefevre

Saturday March 8th, 2003 8:05 PM

Reply to this message

tinderbox and the post say that all the blockers are resolved - what's going on with bug 194994 then?. it has blocking1.3+ but doesn't seem to have been fixed?

#11 holy smokes its fast

by techn9ne

Saturday March 8th, 2003 8:08 PM

Reply to this message

Last time I used mozilla was around the 1.2.1 area. I've been using opera 7 since then. I Just got the latest build here, and it renders pages a lot faster than opera 7.

#18 Re: holy smokes its fast

by minh

Sunday March 9th, 2003 1:11 AM

Reply to this message

You're right, I does seem to load a lot faster than 1.3b. I had never dreamt that such speed could possible. I'm sure Mozilla will beat the xWebs browser. I wish the splash screen could be better. There are a lot of beautiful ones out there, and most of the authors will be willing to donate them to Mozilla.org.

#21 Re: holy smokes its fast

by Tar

Sunday March 9th, 2003 2:22 AM

Reply to this message

mozilla.exe -nosplash

It starts up <=1 sec when in disk cache so what's the point to the spash.

#13 we're rockin

by morg

Saturday March 8th, 2003 9:24 PM

Reply to this message

If you haven't seen a new Mozilla build in a while, give these 1.3 candidate builds a chance. They are solid. I'm running one right now.

This is going to be a darn good release. It still has a lot of the little, minor nagging, annoying bugs that make me angry, but the big ones are fixed. Release 1.3 is very stable and quite zippy.

Hopefully, we'll get most or all of the little junk bugs, like bookmarks data loss bugs, bug 90337, etc, etc, fixed in 1.4. We've got to make 1.4 a quality release of the browser.

I'm going on the warpath about all these little, stupid browser bugs. Fixing them is what 1.4 should be.

It would also be good to throw in Calendar, spell checker, and other such stuff in 1.4. Of course, that will create more little junky bugs, but it should not affect the browser component.

1.3 is going to rock the house. 1.4 is going to rock the house down.

#14 Please Include NS 7.02 fix for WMP 9.0

by geekboy2000

Saturday March 8th, 2003 9:47 PM

Reply to this message

I posted a similar message to the newsgroup, but here goes:

Netscape 7.02 includes a fix/tweak (whatever) to allow streaming video (such as that found on MSNBC) to play with WMP 9.0. Mozilla still (even if I use the same plugin) opens the content in Media Player 6.4. For whatever reason, Media Player 6.4 doesn't do nearly as good a job at streaming on my machine (cable connected), so naturally, I'd like to see such content open in WMP 9.0. I'm also wondering why, when fixes are make their way into 7.02, they don't make the next Mozilla release version. Why is it that with Mozilla, we seem to be given a choice between stability (1.02) or features (1.3). Why don't all the fixes in 1.0x and Netscape 7.0x also make it into the latest final release Mozilla version? If not at 1.3, when *will* that ever happen? Thanks.

#15 Re: Please Include NS 7.02 fix for WMP 9.0

by morg

Saturday March 8th, 2003 11:46 PM

Reply to this message

Sounds like a Mozilla installation issue. Your plugins dir may be screwed up or something.

It's supposed to work. Have you looked at this?

<http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/windows3.html#WMP>

Of course, the long-term solution for plugin problems is plugin manager. That will almost certainly be post-1.4, though.

#16 Please Include NS 7.02 fix for WMP 9.0

by geekboy2000

Saturday March 8th, 2003 11:55 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks. What I see on via that link, is " . . Mozilla will automatically detect and use the Windows Media Player plugin. Windows Media Player 9.0 automatically installs the plugin for Netscape 7.0". I'm using the same plugin in both Netscape 7.02 and Moz directories, but yet 6.4 is what's launched with Mozilla. FWIW, Phoenix users have reported the same scenario on the forum, and when I last read the thread, nobody quite understood why it was happening. I guess I could try uninstalling Media Player 6.4, but I think you know where that'll get me. Plus, 6.4 is handy to have around at times. Ah well, I'll keep searching... maybe I'll come up with something. Thanks again.

#19 read

by morg

Sunday March 9th, 2003 1:40 AM

Reply to this message

Do you have Netscape 4.x installed? Mozilla may be getting the 6.4 plugin from that installation. Try deleting it from there and then see if it works. .

#27 Re: read

by geekboy2000

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:05 AM

Reply to this message

No, Netscape 4.x isn't on this machine. The "about:plugins" in both Netscape 7.02 and Mozilla 1.3, show that they are using exactly the same plugins.

#20 uninstalling Media Player 6.4

by thegoldenear

Sunday March 9th, 2003 1:46 AM

Reply to this message

"I guess I could try uninstalling Media Player 6.4, but I think you know where that'll get me." probably pretty far. what operating system are you using? in Windows 2000: Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> Add/Remove Windows Components -> Windows Media Player

#26 Re: uninstalling Media Player 6.4

by geekboy2000

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

I'm running XP Pro (SP1a). I'll check it out. I assumed it was a hidden or otherwise dependent app. Thanks.

#22 Re: Please Include NS 7.02 fix for WMP 9.0

by pepejeria

Sunday March 9th, 2003 5:02 AM

Reply to this message

I also see this problem, that Mozilla does not use the WMP 9. This causes big problem for example at gamespot.com where I am a subscriber. For me to see the movies I have to use IE :-(

#29 Re: Re: Please Include NS 7.02 fix for WMP 9.0

by geekboy2000

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

It really does seem that Mozilla users who have both Media Player 6.4 and WMP 9 on their systems see the same problem. I believe that it's a problem with Mozilla, not a plugin issue, and in fact, Netscape 7.01 also behaved the same way. The Netscape people fixed something, and (going back to the top of the thread) that fix should be included in Mozilla.

#36 It's a bug

by morg

Sunday March 9th, 2003 4:22 PM

Reply to this message

#38 No no, this is the bug

by morg

Sunday March 9th, 2003 6:20 PM

Reply to this message

Please excuse me. That is not the bug here. Here is the relevant bug.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193883>

#41 Re: No no, this is the bug

by geekboy2000

Sunday March 9th, 2003 7:35 PM

Reply to this message

Gotcha - thanks. I didn't reply to the first one, because I figured you either had too much coffee or not enough. :) I'm glad to see it's been reported, and is getting some attention. What's disturbing (to me, at least) is that the code changes made by Netscape aren't passed back to the Mozilla project. Granted, not every change/fix/enhancement made to Netscape needs or should be in Mozilla, but shouldn't someone spearheading the Moz project make that decision? I'll confess to having no idea how the teams operate, but I'd think fixes and development of enhancements should be a reciprocal type arrangement. Anyway, now I'm rambling. Thanks again.

#42 yeah

by morg

Sunday March 9th, 2003 7:54 PM

Reply to this message

"Gotcha - thanks. I didn't reply to the first one, because I figured you either had too much coffee or not enough. :) "

The latter, "not enough" option was applicable. Never a good thing.

#43 Re: Re: No no, this is the bug

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday March 9th, 2003 8:47 PM

Reply to this message

"What's disturbing (to me, at least) is that the code changes made by Netscape aren't passed back to the Mozilla project."

You've got an example of this -- a mozilla file which Netscape modified and for which they did not make the change publically available? You tested the 1.0 branch (where Netscape based its release) and it's not working for Mozilla there? You can demonstrate that Netscape has modified Mozilla files to make this work for them and that it's not something in the Media Player, in a Netscape specific file (which they're not required to offer back) or broken in Mozilla because of some other Mozilla specific code?

Making the claim that Netscape isn't passing changes back to the Mozilla project is just silly, unless you can prove it. Netscape develops the overwhelming majority of its code _in_ Mozilla. There is no value for them in not doing so for all files that the two apps share.

--Asa

#44 Re: Re: Re: No no, this is the bug

by geekboy2000

Sunday March 9th, 2003 9:16 PM

Reply to this message

>You've got an example of this -- a mozilla file which Netscape modified and for >which they did not make the change publically available?

No. I'm not intimately, or even casually involved with the development. It's an assumption I made based on the fact that streaming with WMP 9 works with no Mozilla version that I've tried (I don't keep a list, but I've tried a lot of them), and no version of Netscape other than Netscape 7.02. The same plugins are used by both, and I'm running both on the same OS. My thoughts as to the possibility of a fix being implemented by Netscacpe and not being passed back are based on my perception/assumption - nothing more.

>You tested the 1.0 branch (where Netscape based its release) and it's not working for >Mozilla there?

No. I understand that the latest version of the 1.x branch is the most stable, and includes the latest fixes, but (no animosity intended here) as I noted in my original post, I'm not interested in choosing between a version with fewer features and all the fixes, and the "latest" version that includes new features, but not all the fixes. If an important fix relative to this or any other functionality is in 1.02, there's no reason I can think of that would explain it not being in a 1.3 release candidate.

>You can demonstrate that Netscape has modified Mozilla files to make this work for >them and that it's not something in the Media Player, in a Netscape specific file (which >they're not required to offer back) or broken in Mozilla because of some other Mozilla >specific code?

No. But again, it certainly appears that *something* has been changed somewhere in Netscape 7.02 that allows this to work properly. I'm running both apps with separate profiles on the same OS/setup. Even if a Netscape specific file was changed, and that file can't (or isn't required to) be passed back to Mozilla, somebody should be at least talking to somebody.

>Making the claim that Netscape isn't passing changes back to the Mozilla project is just >silly, unless you can prove it. Netscape develops the overwhelming majority of its code >_in_ Mozilla. There is no value for them in not doing so for all files that the two apps >share.

Asa, I'm not screaming conspiracy here. I posted because I think the Mozilla/Netscape project is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't mean to imply that there's a person or people who are knuckle-heads. I am suggesting that something that's in Netscape 7.02 isn't in the 1.3 release candidate and it should be. I don't know the reason, and just posted my assumption/perception. My aplogies for basing my opinion on assumptions, but heck, I don't have any real facts. :)

#46 Re: Re: Re: Re: No no, this is the bug

by geekboy2000

Monday March 10th, 2003 1:02 AM

Reply to this message

I just confirmed that this does *not* work correctly in Mozilla 1.02 2003012506 either.

#57 okay, but

by morg

Monday March 10th, 2003 12:43 PM

Reply to this message

Okay, if you find a whole bunch of cases like this, then maybe you have a point about Netscape withholding fixes. I see only this one case, however. That means it is just an oversight. It should be corrected soon enough. Don't worry.

#60 Re: okay, but

by geekboy2000

Monday March 10th, 2003 2:19 PM

Reply to this message

Nope, not a whole bunch of cases, and I'm sure it was just an oversight. I'll just be glad to see a fix. Thanks!

#56 Re: Re: Re: Re: No no, this is the bug

by hto

Monday March 10th, 2003 11:50 AM

Reply to this message

Just my observation that some plugin vendors (and web sites etc.) actually test the browser UA string and will not work if it does not match what they think are "good".

#64 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No no, this is the bug

by baffoni

Monday March 10th, 2003 8:24 PM

Reply to this message

If that is the case, it should be easy to test by changing UA string (e.g. with pref toolbar).

#59 Re: No no, this is the bug

by bomfog <bomfog@gmail.com>

Monday March 10th, 2003 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Nota bene: Comments #11 and #12 in bug 193883 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193883>

Seems WMP is picking up the filename of the calling binary, and not recognizing mozilla/phoenix.

Evidence: Renaming the binary to "netscape.exe" gets you WMP9.

Conclusion: Not moz's fault, and NS isn't sandbagging us (at least in this case:)

Caveat: Not personally tested.

#61 Re: okay, but

by geekboy2000

Monday March 10th, 2003 2:23 PM

Reply to this message

Good find, thanks! And, it certainly highlights the fact that my assumptions were wrong, and I now look (if I didn't already) like a total goof. ;) Thanks for the info!

#62 Re: okay, but

by geekboy2000

Monday March 10th, 2003 2:40 PM

Reply to this message

An extra thank you, as this re-naming also works with Opera 7, which also does not launch WMP 9. It does if renamed to netscp.exe. There's a thread in the opera.general newsgroup about this very same issue, and I have passed along a link (crediting you) to your post. Nice!

#65 Re: Please Include NS 7.02 fix for WMP 9.0

by WalterK

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 2:23 AM

Reply to this message

#66 Correct bug link

by WalterK

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 2:26 AM

Reply to this message

#70 Re: okay, but

by geekboy2000

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

WalterK,.... you are The Man! Thanks so much for the info/fix. I have also passed this on to the folks in the opera.general newsgroup, as the fix works fine when Opera is added to the list as well. Again, many thanks for an exceptional find/fix.

#17 Moz mail bug from around 1.2

by Surge

Sunday March 9th, 2003 12:16 AM

Reply to this message

Hi, sorry I can't figure out why I can't find such bug (in bugzilla) - most probably I'm searching wrong or smth.. anyhow.. I believe everyone who uses Moz Mail component found out that since release 1.2 or so whenever you remove items from the folder the counter is not updated, this is true for the deleted items, this is now true for the junk stuff, etc... Why is this happening? FOr me it is a very simple event handler.. if it wasn't broken before (it wasn't in 1.1) then why someone introduced it? For the the counter to get updated I should leave the folder and then return to it again... :( For me it is showstopper.. I hoped someone would fix it, but seems like either there no people in the universe who use Moz Mail or no-one cares. :( Also, are there any news on full text search in Mozilla Mail? I want to be able to find stuff in 2000+ emails I have in my "collection". Weird something that seem to be so useful is not implemented...

#25 Re: Moz mail bug from around 1.2

by z43420024 <z43420024@netscape.net>

Sunday March 9th, 2003 9:38 AM

Reply to this message

Can anyone test the bug 196425?

I found that the file size of 'Trash' is very large when I backup my profile. However, I had emptyed Trash in Moz mail beforehand.

#39 Re: Re: Moz mail bug from around 1.2

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Sunday March 9th, 2003 6:38 PM

Reply to this message

File>Compact Folders

#35 Re: Mail bug and feature

by schapel

Sunday March 9th, 2003 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

Bug 161999 is about the number of mail messages displaying incorrectly.

For searching all messages, try Tools | Search Messages...

#23 default xft + gtk2 build

by chuckmo

Sunday March 9th, 2003 6:06 AM

Reply to this message

My info may be a bit outdated but I want to know when we can have a default build which includes XFT and GTK2 support. FontConfig has been out for a while and GTK+ 2.2 is now quite solid on Linux. I think it's time to have them included in Moz. I know there are rpm builds but there's no talkback functions.

#32 gtk2 build still flawed

by prometeo

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:31 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe because there are still over 40 bugs open against the gtk2 port? Some of them are RFE, sure, but the rest are bugs. A few of them have a patch waiting for landing...

#24 XML Foo

by andyed

Sunday March 9th, 2003 7:57 AM

Reply to this message

What's up with the XML breakage? This thing can't ship with busted xml... Error: DOMParser is not a function, Source File: chrome://blozom/content/render/xfml.js, Line: 12

#31 Re: XML Foo

by mlefevre

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

XML is working ok as far as I know (and presumably the mozilla developers) know. if you're having a problem that you think is serious, file a bug report and mark it as "blocking1.3?" so it gets looked at...

#53 Working fine

by andyed

Monday March 10th, 2003 7:22 AM

Reply to this message

Yep, code that worked in 1.2 busted in 1.3, but it should have busted in 1.2 :)

For some reason, 1.2 accepted var foo = DOMParser().... while 1.3 insists on var foo = new DOMParser....

#28 AIM in Adressbook?

by mbop

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:06 AM

Reply to this message

To me it looks as if the Instant Messenging button in the adressbook is somewhat misplaced in mozilla, is'nt it?

#30 Re: AIM in Adressbook?

by mlefevre

Sunday March 9th, 2003 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

the button still works if you have something installed to handle it. I've never had AIM - when I click that button it fires up trillian and I can send an IM from there...

#67 Re: Re: AIM in Adressbook?

by mbop

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 2:36 AM

Reply to this message

But do you think it's suitable to have a button displayed, if nothing is installed?

#33 OS/2 build available as well

by pspmikek

Sunday March 9th, 2003 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

#55 Re: OS/2 build available as well

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Monday March 10th, 2003 10:00 AM

Reply to this message

I actually wonder why there's a need for an OS/2 mozilla port? OS/2 is dead :(, so why IBM invests in this porting? Ok, they may released 1.0 and that's OK for the OS/2 dieng status, but the development is going on till now. Isn't it better that they team (how many coders are there?) works on the mozilla itself... Or is there some hidden future plans for OS/2?

Tnx.

#68 Re: Re: OS/2 build available as well

by the_Rebel

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 3:24 AM

Reply to this message

First of all, OS/2 is not dead.

Secondly, what reason would there be for IBM to invest in developers working on Mozilla for Windows, Linux, or Mac platforms? If they were not working on the OS/2 version then they probably would not work on Mozilla at all.

#34 freetype?

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Sunday March 9th, 2003 1:26 PM

Reply to this message

Why the heck does it still not use freetype on Linux? The default font rendering looks just awefull!

#37 freetype?

by jonik

Sunday March 9th, 2003 4:57 PM

Reply to this message

"The default font rendering looks just awefull!"

Hmm.. I disagree. If you have some nice Truetype fonts installed, and have configured Mozilla to use them, it looks quite good. Even without antialiasing, Xft and all that.

#54 Re: freetype?

by bzbarsky

Monday March 10th, 2003 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

Because:

1) The Mozilla freetype module is still somewhat buggy 2) Freetype itself is somewhat buggy (we have dozens of bugs in bugzilla that were actually freetype bugs, not Mozilla bugs).

#40 LDAP broken

by tack

Sunday March 9th, 2003 6:39 PM

Reply to this message

Added LDAP directories don't show up in this release candidate (unless you restart, apparently). I hope 1.3 final doesn't get released with this bug.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196556> (look like a dupe of 195754)

#47 View Page Info -> Media

by datta77 <datta@gmx.com.ar>

Monday March 10th, 2003 6:17 AM

Reply to this message

Im using the win32 Mozilla 1.3 candidate and when I use the View Page Info -> Media, I can see the list of images of the page, but the preview pane (at the bottom) is always blank. I mean, the scroll bars of the preview pane appears (depending on the size of the selected image, i guess), but there is nothing to see.

I searched in bugzilla but I didn't find this. You can try this with <http://www.mozillazine.org> or <http://www.mozilla.org>

Is this a bug? Is this already reported?

#52 Oops

by datta77 <datta@gmx.com.ar>

Monday March 10th, 2003 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, this is working OK. It was a problem with my profile.

#48 View Page Info -> Media

by datta77 <datta@gmx.com.ar>

Monday March 10th, 2003 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

Im using the win32 Mozilla 1.3 candidate and when I use the View Page Info -> Media, I can see the list of images of the page, but the preview pane (at the bottom) is always blank. I mean, the scroll bars of the preview pane appears (depending on the size of the selected image, i guess), but there is nothing to see.

I searched in bugzilla but I didn't find this. You can try this with <http://www.mozillazine.org> or <http://www.mozilla.org>

Is this a bug? Is this already reported?

#49 View Page Info -> Media

by datta77 <datta@gmx.com.ar>

Monday March 10th, 2003 6:22 AM

Reply to this message

Im using the win32 Mozilla 1.3 candidate and when I use the View Page Info -> Media, I can see the list of images of the page, but the preview pane (at the bottom) is always blank. I mean, the scroll bars of the preview pane appears (depending on the size of the selected image, i guess), but there is nothing to see.

I searched in bugzilla but I didn't find this. You can try this with <http://www.mozillazine.org> or <http://www.mozilla.org>

Is this a bug? Is this already reported?

#50 View Page Info -> Media

by datta77 <datta@gmx.com.ar>

Monday March 10th, 2003 6:23 AM

Reply to this message

Im using the win32 Mozilla 1.3 candidate and when I use the View Page Info -> Media, I can see the list of images of the page, but the preview pane (at the bottom) is always blank. I mean, the scroll bars of the preview pane appears (depending on the size of the selected image, i guess), but there is nothing to see.

I searched in bugzilla but I didn't find this. You can try this with <http://www.mozillazine.org> or <http://www.mozilla.org>

Is this a bug? Is this already reported?

#51 Sorry for the multiple posting (N/T)

by datta77 <datta@gmx.com.ar>

Monday March 10th, 2003 6:25 AM

Reply to this message

(N/T)

#63 Smooooth...

by jrs66

Monday March 10th, 2003 7:30 PM

Reply to this message

This is, without a doubt, the cleanest Moz Version I've ever used (since .91). Great job! Hope the momentum can continue.

#69 Re: Smooooth...

by naylor83 <d.naylor@swipnet.se>

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 3:57 AM

Reply to this message

What about it do you find smoother than the versions, for example 1.2.1 and 1.1? Just curious.

#71 I don't know about him...

by davidboydca

Tuesday March 11th, 2003 12:54 PM

Reply to this message

1.1 was great. 1.2 had an annoying habit of writing to disk like crazy when ever I opened or closed a browser windows or bookmarks. This gave me a bad feeling that Mozilla quality was going downhill. 1.3 has fixed that plus it's faster than I've ever seen Mozilla. Add all the new features and it is really the best Mozilla ever.