Mozilla 1.5 Release Candidate 1 Builds Available for Download

Thursday September 18th, 2003

The first release candidate of Mozilla 1.5 is now available for download. Get a build from the Releases page or and check out the Mozilla 1.5 Release Candidate 1 Release Notes for more information, including details of what's new. At least one more release candidate is expected before the final release of Mozilla 1.5.

#1 Does anyone actually prefer the new tab behavior?

by Prognathous

Thursday September 18th, 2003 1:17 AM

The new Replace Tabs behavior makes 1.5 uselss for me. Dataloss sucks.


#8 Re: Does anyone actually prefer the new tab behavi

by alanjstr

Thursday September 18th, 2003 8:50 AM

Is there a preference to disable it? There probably is.

#9 Re: Re: Does anyone actually prefer the new tab be

by JBassford

Thursday September 18th, 2003 9:11 AM

There is no preference.

There is, however, a "hack" that will fix it so long as you don't keep upgrading your browser. (If you do you'll have to do it again.) See:

While I think that this should be fixed because it's such a hot topic and, obviously, a lot of people aren't happy, I have to say that speaking *personally* I couldn't be happier with this behaviour. I simply couldn't stand tab groups appending themselves to the end. While there *could* be different, and better, ways of handling what happens than what we have now, I still find it a huge improvement over what we had before. In fact I can't think of a single instance since I started using tab groups that I've wanted them to do anything other than what they're doing right now (replacing everything as with a single bookmark). In my mind, forcing an append is probably the *worst* of all possible scenarios. (Then again, I can also see how a lot of people would think the same thing about forcing a complete replace.)

#12 Tabs - Replace vs. Append

by peterlairo

Thursday September 18th, 2003 11:13 AM

I couldn't agree MORE. I use tabs a lot and really like the replace behavior. I've seen the append and conditional append bahaviors, and find they cause too much clutter and confusion.

Since there are strong benefits on both sides, I suggest that a "modifier" toggle between replace and append:

Click tab-group - replace existing tabs SHIFT+Click tab-group - append to existing tab-group (or vise verca)

#25 Common...

by CerthasIM

Friday September 19th, 2003 11:05 AM

Common is it reallz so much of a hastle to close the other tabs before or after opening the bookmark? Especiallz with the close all other tabs functionality?

The point is quite simply that the new behavior is verz easily incorporated in the old whereas it isn't possible at all the other waz round. We have lost features. Things that people did and did often are now impossible. not annoying, harder to do or slightlz broken, but impossible.

#13 Re: Re: Re: Does anyone actually prefer the new ta

by turi

Thursday September 18th, 2003 11:38 AM

"replacing everything as with a single bookmark"

But a bookmark doesn't replace everything, only one page. I have a few group-bookmarks which I use very often (like the wheatherforecast with a tab for temperature map, satellite photo, radar etc.) but I certainly don't want them to replace all the mozillazine and slashdot stories I'm just reading. I'm hoping for 1.4.1 to be released soon, that at least will have my preferred behaviour. I think it is really silly to implement such a change in a release build without a possibility to change it.

#16 Re: Re: Re: Re: Does anyone actually prefer the ne

by eiseli

Thursday September 18th, 2003 4:11 PM

There's a logic behind the change, IMHO. However, as most say, there should be an option to change the behavior. For example append instead of replace, or open new browser instance with the new tabs. The most annoying situation is if you click on a groupmark *by mistake* (instead of clicking on a tab). Then, all your current work is lost. I've read the bug and seems that pressing back will restore the previous tabs (does this work already? - haven't downloaded any 1.5 build as of yet). Then the question would be, if you were filling a form before this accident, will the form content be restored, or will you have a complete dataloss?

#26 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does anyone actually prefer th

by corwin

Friday September 19th, 2003 12:21 PM

This new behaviour is a huge source of data loss and really feels unfinished and incomplete, it shouldn't have been implemented before it was bug free and should certainly not have replaced a fully functional one. Unfortunately, the guy who changed mozilla behaviour with his "replace tabs" patch does not seem to want to fix the bugs that his patch introduced.

#10 forget it, get Multizilla

by an_mo

Thursday September 18th, 2003 9:20 AM

I use multizilla, and you should too

#23 Re: New tab behaviour -> Tabbrowser Extensions

by Andi710

Friday September 19th, 2003 8:42 AM

I use the tabbrowser extensions with Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030825

Tabs are not replaced when opening a group bookmark. Just try it out - the extensions are nice anyway.



#33 Re: Does anyone actually prefer the new tab behavi

by allyn

Sunday September 21st, 2003 11:07 PM

sorry for chiming in so late, but i also am really dissatisfied with the new behavior that loses all of my previous tabs. when 1.4.1 comes out i may switch back.

please add a preference to restore the old behavior (appending group bookmark tabs) to 1.5.

#2 Newness?

by sime

Thursday September 18th, 2003 2:25 AM

Any new features, from 1.5b ? Or just a bug release. I will still get it (free bandwidth from a state wide .au University network, meaning I have access to good mirrors other than my pathetic Uni's attempt) and give it a bit of a hammering.

#3 Re: Newness?

by mlefevre

Thursday September 18th, 2003 2:56 AM

Since 1.5beta, just bug fixes and a few small back-end improvements that wouldn't be obvious. The idea is that new features are introduced before the beta release, and then the final version is just the beta release with bug fixes.

#5 Re: Re: Newness?

by sime

Thursday September 18th, 2003 5:44 AM

Yes I understand the process, its just that not every release has RC's.

#11 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups

by Ark42

Thursday September 18th, 2003 9:28 AM

+Spellchecker -Useable groupmarks

Stick with 1.4 for now if you have any groupmarks.

#4 How can you know if a fix is in 1.5?

by pepejeria

Thursday September 18th, 2003 4:19 AM

How can you know if a certain fix will be in 1.5 or in 1.6a? Can you assume that if it doenst have the "fixed1.5", that it then wont make it?

#6 pseudo-elements?

by jammmjammm

Thursday September 18th, 2003 7:49 AM

What's this about?

"The '::' notation for CSS pseudo-elements is now supported."

I can't find info at

#7 Re: pseudo-elements?

by mlefevre

Thursday September 18th, 2003 7:59 AM

It's something from CSS3 (the selectors bit currently has "candidate recommendation" status).

#20 Re: Re: pseudo-elements?

by WeSaySo

Thursday September 18th, 2003 8:36 PM

> The old ':' notation is still supported for the various -moz-* > pseudo-elements, but will NOT be supported in Mozilla 1.5.

I'm assuming the drop in support for ':' notation will only be in chrome CSS?

#21 Re: Re: Re: pseudo-elements?

by mlefevre

Friday September 19th, 2003 4:11 AM

Why are you assuming that? As I understand it -moz-* pseudo-elements won't work with ":" notation in web pages either. If you have this stuff in your web page, you'll need to change it.

Note that this won't affect CSS2 stuff like :link :hover etc, if that's what you were thinking of...

#28 Re: Re: Re: Re: pseudo-elements?

by WeSaySo

Friday September 19th, 2003 8:41 PM

Well, technically, -moz-* selectors are not supposed to be used outside of chrome, but that's what I meant, will the ':' notation still work with CSS2 defined pseudo-elements in web pages. So if I use p:first-line on a web page, will it still work?

BTW, :link, :hover, etc are pseudo-classes, not pseudo-elements and they keep the single ':' even in CSS3.

#34 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pseudo-elements?

by mlefevre

Monday September 22nd, 2003 10:04 AM

Yes, the ':' notation will continue to work for the pseudo-elements defined in CSS2, and for pseudo-classes. The change is that it won't work for -moz- pseudo-elements or anything else. This only has an impact on chrome (including themes) and webpages which are using the non-standard -moz-* selectors. has details.

(and yes, this is about pseudo-elements - I was wondering if you were misunderstanding and gave an over-simple example, but clearly you weren't and I answered the wrong question... my apologies)

#35 Re: pseudo-elements?

by WeSaySo

Wednesday September 24th, 2003 8:14 AM

> This only has an impact on chrome (including themes) and webpages > which are using the non-standard -moz-* selectors.

That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks.

> ... my apologies no prob.

#14 Diff between 1.4.1 and 1.5?

by saidiadude

Thursday September 18th, 2003 12:01 PM

What will appear different to the end-user (1.4.1 vs 1.5)? Is there a list somewhere (other than bugfixes)? Thx.

#15 Re: Diff between 1.4.1 and 1.5?

by saidiadude

Thursday September 18th, 2003 12:11 PM

I found this:

Still trying to figure out which Moz to install on 5-6 machines that have high usage. Moz will be used mainly for browsing (no email or composer, etc). Leaning towards 1.4.1 for stability. Any opinions?

#18 Hum ... 1.4

by offmdan

Thursday September 18th, 2003 5:00 PM

Sun Microsystems is adopting 1.4 for it's upcoming project...

(I reported a bug to 1.5 and it seems to have been wiped away. Newsletters with headers refering to text in the body don't work in 1.5 - but do in 1.4)

#19 Re: Re: 1997-98 When NSCP 4.x was the hype...

by hstark

Thursday September 18th, 2003 7:37 PM

I have had the same experience. Newsletters from the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal. Links refering to text within the newsletter do not work. One gets a alert saying "is not a registered protocol". I believe that all was ok in M1.4 and M1.5b. Th problem started with M1.5rc1.

#24 Re: Re: Re: 1997-98 When NSCP 4.x was the hype...

by asa

Friday September 19th, 2003 9:54 AM

You've filed a bug and the bug number is....?


#29 Re: Re: Re: Re: 1997-98 When NSCP 4.x was the hype

by soulek

Saturday September 20th, 2003 3:18 AM


I have experienced what I believe are the same mail link issues with 1.5RC1 as were mentioned by "hstark". I reported it as Bug 219777 (see My apologies if I don't have it categorized properly.

#30 Re: Re: 1997-98 When NSCP 4.x was the hype...

by hstark

Saturday September 20th, 2003 4:15 AM

Asa, I believe there were 3 bugs filed, 215248, 219275 and 219777. I looked at them all; they are the same. I marked 215248 & 219275 as the same and will do so for 219777. Sorry that I did not post that here. Howie

#31 Re: Re: 1997-98 When NSCP 4.x was the hype...

by hstark

Saturday September 20th, 2003 4:25 AM

Asa, I just looked more carefully, 219777 is somewhat different. They all happenwith newsletters. Howie

#17 Source?

by sime

Thursday September 18th, 2003 4:31 PM

Where art tho?

#22 Re: Source?

by mlefevre

Friday September 19th, 2003 4:36 AM

Source is available from CVS - - which has just moved to a new fast server.

If you want a tarball, you'll probably have to wait for the 1.5 release - a tarball should appear within a few days of that.

#27 plugins.css

by Tar

Friday September 19th, 2003 3:39 PM

Nitpick again, about:plugins CSS chrome://communicator/skin/plugins.css is MIA

#32 Chrome for "more bookmarks" in link bar gone

by joe222

Saturday September 20th, 2003 9:04 AM

I don't know what the exact name of the little arrows is given. Anyone knows if a bug for this has been submitted? And if so, the bug number?