Monday August 16th, 1999
MathML will be joining the rest of the Mozilla code in the CVS tree after M9's released. This doesn't mean that it'll make it into the final release; that will depend on how robust the MathML implementation is at release time. But it will be in the tree, so when you check out you'll be checking out MathML code as well. Also, MathML will be added to Bugzilla, so you can contribute bug reports, and MathML-related binaries may be made available for user testing. Click here to read the news post.
If you're looking for a way to help out, this would be a great way to start. The MathML guys already have a good understanding of the layout and rendering mechanisms of Mozilla, and by checking out the MathML code you might get a good idea of how the browser works.
When is M9 due?
When is beta 1 due?
This is taking forever! MS will have IE6.0 out before Communication 5.0 is even stable!
Can't netscape or AOL or IBM or anyone dedicate more resources to this?
Actually, Mozilla is progressing quite nicely.
Milestone 9 is due out today, see the milestone plan at <http://www.mozilla.org/pr…cts/seamonkey/milestones/>
So don't worry, Mozilla will be a great browser when it comes out.
Being a great browser also means NOT TAKING FOREVER TO COME OUT...
Sighs... that's why Ns is only 20% of the browsers worldwide nowadays...
Tuesday August 17th, 1999 5:41 PM
is rather have a mostly working version... where the core func was there, but all the extras were left out and gradually added as upgrades, i mean mozilla is component based so its just a matter of downloadin some new dll's and replacing others.. no big deal.. that would be cooler cause then we could get it faster and it could get more real world testing.
if that's the case then IE 6 will come out before W2K is stable! I thought W2K would be integrated with IE5
You just think it's taking forever.... Mozilla has come farther faster than any version of a browser previous to it. They've implemented stuff comparable to IE 5.0 in roughly half the time (consider that IE 5.0 is basically IE 4.5, and then consider the entire time spent developing IE 4.0 and IE 5.0, and Mozilla is moving at lightning speed). M9 should be out in a few days. Beta one will be out in a couple of months or less (This is Mozilla's beta, mind you.... No one outside Netscape knows the status of Netscape's branded version of Mozilla with other features and such).
On a side note, if IE 6.0 really does come out before Christmas, then developers will still have to deal with writing for incompatible standards, because MS's engine is nowhere near total standards compliance right now and wouldn't be in 4-5 months (NGLayout/Gecko has taken close to a year, and it's easier to get into compliance because it was entirely new code designed for that purpose [well, that and speed], and IE's would need to deal with old problematic things and such). What I find funny is that IE 5.0 for Mac has a new rendering engine that will actually make it closer to the standards than IE 5.0 for Windows. :)
Minor note: My couple months statement doesn't necessarily mean "2".... I guess between 2 and 3, somewhere (It's M12, isn't it? If not, then I'm reading the Seamonkey milestone schedule page wrong).
#6 MathML Landing!
by sj12fn <email@example.com>
Monday August 16th, 1999 1:52 PM
I thought it was M11. Anyway, according to Moz.org, they plan not to release a browser, but a base upon which other companies can build browsers (more a Mozilla class of browsers than a Mozilla browser)
Can you provide a link? I can understand that mozilla.org would be interested in providing a Mozilla "class of browsers" and other tools, but I'm curious whether Netscape/AOL is adopting that stance as well, or whether they're doing the "normal" thing and releasing their own browser.
Does anyone know the Market Share of that two? I'm looking for figures like,
How many Corprate Internet Users and Home Users. wich one have more headcounts.
I seem to recall people praising IE 4.0 for waiting 6 months and getting a good browser (yes, I admit it, IE 4.0 and 5.0 are decent; I use them on a non-regular basis because I'm used to clicking the ship wheel icon) that was closer to the standards of the time (Netscape was chastised widely for <LAYER> which was inherently dissimilar to the standard). So the situation doesn't go both ways? It's not that different. (IE 4.0 was a giant leap from IE 3.0 and took a long time to be released. Mozilla is entirely new code from 4.5, and thus is taking a long time.) You can't build Rome in a day.
What's interesting is how IE allegedly (I question the validity of that statmarket thing, because it doesn't measure any of the largest sites) holds a higher browser share than their OS market share (Macs make up about 15% of machines in use [the overall percentage of Macs is much higher than the percentage of sales now, because so many old Macs are in use], Unix and the like makes up at least 5% [probably more, especially if you take into account dual-boot systems], OS/2, BeOS, etc.) would make possible. My guess is that the percentage of people using both is higher than the percentage of people using either one or the other (my personal site has about 57% IE usage and about 42% Netscape usage, but given that over 92% of my users use Windows 9x, I'm not surprised there).
My personal suspicion (and this is opinion, rather than [mostly] fact as I've been presenting before) is that IE's market share lead is entirely contingent upon two things: A) AOL's using it by default, and B) the fact that ALL Win98 users are considered IE users, whether they browse with it or not. If AOL dropped IE (not unlikely in the future) and if the government wins the antitrust case (making the browser integration anti-competitive), I think IE's market share drops well below 50% (probably not a majority percentage, and certainly not a clear cut majority). But this is simple speculation.
#13 music heads
Tuesday August 17th, 1999 5:50 PM
im a music head.. a band nerd is you most. im addicted to drumming and i would love, a music markup language so i could for example say <Sixteenth:A> and get a not that was an a and a sixteenth note.. man would i llove something like that... we need to get it, like right now, a music markup language.. i wnat it and i want it now. smebody please make it.. please.......
#15 Why don't you actually look for one?
Thursday August 19th, 1999 12:36 AM
`a band nerd is you most' ... `a and a' ... `llove' ... `i wnat it' ... `smebody' ...
Let me guess, you tried to find a music markup language using a Web search engine, but your spelling let you down?
With a quick search, I found:
* MML, <http://is.up.ac.za/mml/>
The tricky thing about developing a music markup language is building in all the cruft that makes the music readable by a human (i.e., on a stave score).
Having an XML equivalent of MIDI would be relatively easy (that's what EMML above seems to be), but building in all those odd things, like slurs, and apoggiaturas, and cue notes for orchestral parts, and glissandos, and fingering, and bowing marks, and divisi, and verses where some of the lyrics are the same and some are different, and clef changes, and ... would be somewhat more difficult.
And rendering such a language nicely would be *fiendishly* complicated -- much more complicated than HTML or MathML. Even working out something as simple as whether the tail of a note goes up or down is very difficult if you want the music to look right.
I could easily imagine such a program being as large as Mozilla itself ... And that's before we even *begin* to get into the complexities of actually *playing* the music, cross-platform. :-)
Fantastic idea! I'd love a MusicML. Wonder if the W3C would ever consider such an idea (or has one already been proposed?)....