Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 0.9.7 Released! 436

Posted by chrisd from the free-lizard dept.
Chezypewf writes: "The newest release from the Mozilla Dev team is out. This milestone features basic S/MIME support, favicon support and the Document Inspector, a tool to inspect and edit the live DOM of any web document or XUL application. You can grab it here: http://www.mozilla.org/releases "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 0.9.7 Released! More

Mozilla 0.9.7 Released!

Comments Filter:
  • Shoot, there is still not support for MSN's "Secure Password authentication". One day, one day.
  • If it's ever going to topple MSIE, they need to slow their development rate. The fact that Microsoft goes from IE4->IE5->IE6 confuses enough newbie users, going from 0.0093->0.0094->0.00103 every 2 weeks is beyond most people.

    Great browser, ridiculously fast development rate. Slow it down guys, release every .1

    My two cents.

    - Dave Brennins
    • Okay, let me slam you around with a very short quote:

      "We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"

      Again,

      "We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"

      See the first line on the release page? It says:

      "We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"

      If you want a not-testing-purposes-only browser, go use Netscape 6.2. Binary versions of Mozilla are are available for testing purposes only.

  • Mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 )
    I really am trying to find a good reason to even keep netscape on my box anymore. If there were just a good repository of plugins Mozilla would be the best damned browser available ... I would compare it to Netscape, but it has obviously surpassed netscape so I will compare it to the next best thing. I think it definantelly holds its weight against IE ... In fact with all the new integration ... I think it beats IE ... all we need are the plugins ... and we're set ... at least crossover has started to help ..


    • I really am trying to find a good reason to even keep netscape on my box anymore. If there were just a good repository of plugins Mozilla would be the best damned browser available ... I would compare it to Netscape, but it has obviously surpassed netscape so I will compare it to the next best thing. I think it definantelly holds its weight against IE ... In fact with all the new integration ... I think it beats IE ... all we need are the plugins ... and we're set ... at least crossover has started to help ..

      I'm inclined to agree. With the Quicklaunch option enabled, Mozilla is faster than IE on my system. I'm loving the new tabbed browsing. It's great for keeping my place on sites like Slashdot where there are a lot of links to outside sites. Mozilla's cookie management and form management is wonderful. And I'm really starting to like its sidebars and its handling of bookmarks.

    • Mozilla runs Netscape plugins (Score:5, Informative)

      by kimihia ( 84738 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @02:37AM (#2740669) Homepage

      Copy the files from your "plugins" subdirectory for Netscape to the "plugins" subdirectory for Mozilla. They will work. I've been running Quicktime (under Windows) and Flash with no problems.

      Well, I did have one problem ... where I forgot to copy the Quicktime 5 plugin over the Quicktime 4 plugin, and it would crash when the page was unloaded. That was fixed by getting the plugin version to match the DLLs it was linked against. Doh!

    • Just curious...what plugins are you having trouble with? Mozilla adopted all of my Netscape plugins without a hitch; just copy over the files from one Plugins dir to the other. It's fine with Java, Shockwave/Flash (before I deleted it anyway), Quicktime, Crescendo, and a handful of others that I don't remember off the top of my head. Never had any problems with plugins before (or at least, not that didn't show up in N4.7 also...)

      DennyK

    • Re:Mozilla (Score:5, Informative)

      by netdemonboberb ( 314045 ) <netdemonz@NOSPAm.yahoo.com> on Saturday December 22, 2001 @03:01AM (#2740740) Homepage
      I am a mozilla developer, and I use both Netscape 6 and Mozilla. Most of the time, though, I use Netscape for browsing because there is a stability factor in the fact that I am not constantly changing it, editing the source, downloading new nightlies, etc. I have 4 versions of Mozilla on my disk usually at once, along with Netscape 6:
      1) Source tree for hacking
      2) Binary tree for hacking the chrome
      3) Binary tree of a recent nightly to keep track of feature progress
      4) Latest milestone release

      I use Netscape 6 for browsing because I am not constantly editing, hacking, crashing, replacing, or deleting it. I started doing this last year when downloading a new version of Mozilla might mean that your profile doesn't work anymore.

      I imagine for people who don't work on the Mozilla project and don't do what I do, it might be better just to get Mozilla and forget Netscape altogether.

      There are some advantages to getting Netscape 6 instead though. It has better plugin support from companies such as Macromedia, integrated AIM, has been more thoroughly tested (as it comes from a milestone branch), has spell-checker, is made to be easier to use than Mozilla, has a better help system, is more polished and attractive, and should generally be more stable and functional - although this is not always the case.

      Some disadvantages of Netscape 6 are that it is a much larger download, more bloated, always a couple months behind Mozilla in terms of features, doesn't have IRC Chat (though this may change in the future), has a somewhat quirky installation server (though this should change too), has a private bug database, and comes with a lot of bundled programs which people might not want.

      Therefore, it all depends on your preferences which program you use. If you are an advanced user, then Mozilla might be all you need. For the average user, though, Netscape 6 would be what I would recommend. I might also recommend always having up-to-date copies of both programs, and using the one you like the best. Remember, as Mozilla has few users compared to Netscape, the web might not be always written with Mozilla in mind. Therefore, there might be sites that - for instance - sniff for Netscape 6 but not for Mozilla, or plugins that only work on Netscape 6.

      • Re:Mozilla (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I am a mozilla developer

        Yeah you are but I checked out your bugs and noticed you on IRC and it seems that you are too cocky and annoy the shit out of everyone there. Not trying to start a flame post here, but stop trying to give a feeling of authority. Just because you are a Mozilla developer doesn't mean you're a good one.

        Hell, I can fix a spell error too and say I'm a Mozilla developer....

  • from the release notes "What's New" (Score:5, Informative)

    by asa ( 33102 ) <asa@mozilla.com> on Saturday December 22, 2001 @02:17AM (#2740605) Homepage
    What's New In This Release
    • The Labels feature in Mail&News is now fully implemented. Organize your mail messages with the following new features:
      • Add labels to messages via context menus or the Message menu.
      • Clear labels from messages.
      • Change description and color of the labels via preferences (Edit | Preferences | Mail & Newsgroups | Labels). Five different labels are supported.
      • Add filter rules to set labels to spec.
    • Mozilla Mail&News now supports basic S/MIME functionality although the UI is still incomplete.
    • The Document Inspector [mozilla.org] is now enabled in complete installations. The DOM Inspector is a tool that can be used to inspect and edit the live DOM of any web document or XUL application. The DOM hierarchy can be navigated using a two-paned window that allows for a variety of different views on the document and all nodes within. If you're using the Mozilla installer, be sure to switch from typical, to complete or custom install to install the DOM inspector and JS Debugger.
    • The Mac OSX toolbar collapse button is now implemented. Press this button in the title bar to toggle display of toolbars.
    • The latest and greatest ChatZilla 0.8.5 is now shipping in Mozilla.
    • Springloaded folders -- Dragging and hovering over a bookmark or message folder will expand the folder.
    • Mozilla works again on Mac OS 8.5.
    • Mozilla now supports shortcut icons [microsoft.com] (a.k.a favicons) and custom page icons in bookmarks and in the personal toolbar.
    • If you type into the URL bar while a page is loading, your text is no longer overwritten when the page load completes.
    • The sidebar now has a Close button.
    • Print preview is now available on Macintosh.
    • Mozilla now has support for digest access authentication.
    • The Save Page operation now also saves images, stylesheets, objects and applets included in the page.
    • Mozilla now supports the longdesc [bath.ac.uk] attribute of the img tag. The longdesc attribute contains a link to a file describing the image in detail, for those times where the image cannot be downloaded. To view the longdesc, right click on an image, click 'properties' in the context menu, then click on the description url in the properties dialog.
    • Mozilla has a new advanced preference panel for fine-grained JavaScript control. For instance, you can disallow pop up and pop-under windows without turning off JavaScript altogether.
    • When a page using a strict document type declaration (e.g. HTML 4.01 Strict) links to an external style sheet (using <link>, @import, etc) Mozilla will only load the style sheet if it is served with a MIME type of "text/css". Style sheets served with other MIME types, like text/plain, application/x-pointplus, etc. will not be loaded. To add the proper css mime type to an Apache web servers, add "text/css css" to the system mime.types file. Or if you can't do that, add "AddType text/css .css" to your .htaccess file.


    • --Asa

  • favicon (Score:3, Funny)

    by Daspek ( 132130 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @02:24AM (#2740625)
    wow. now i can finally create one and avoid shtuff like
    198.236.22.34 - - [21/Dec/2001:10:27:47 -0800] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.0" 404 272
    in my http logs, without feeling bad for catering only to windows ie users.

    fav icons...man... i can't wait until we have magical talking paperclips, too!

    • Re:favicon (Score:2, Interesting)

      by spectecjr ( 31235 )
      fav icons...man... i can't wait until we have magical talking paperclips, too!

      Funny... I actually find them useful... recognizing an image is much faster than reading text. *shrugs*
    • You can turn it off in the preferences. It's called "web site icons." Try that in IE.

    • Re:favicon (Score:3, Funny)

      by epsalon ( 518482 )
      Or, you can make it a PNG image, so only Mozilla shows the icon and the IE users won't see it.
      Also, you won't have to create your icon in a M$ format.

    • Re:favicon (Score:4, Informative)

      by netdemonboberb ( 314045 ) <netdemonz@NOSPAm.yahoo.com> on Saturday December 22, 2001 @09:01AM (#2741123) Homepage
      Create the favicon, but please also put the in your pages so that eventually browsers will stop searching for favicon.ico. Microsoft created this mess and hopefully it can be fixed. Also, by using the method, you can have different icons on different parts of your site. Unfortunately, "shortcut icon" (also started by Microsoft as a response to complaints about logs) is not proper use of the link tag. It is saying that this is both a shortcut and an icon.

      Evangalism bug for the method:
      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110296 [mozilla.org]

  • *drooling over this feature* (Score:4, Informative)

    by Misch ( 158807 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @02:33AM (#2740659) Homepage

    I know, it's beena round, but I'm happy to have this feature:

    http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.7/#new [mozilla.org]

    Mozilla has a new advanced preference panel for fine-grained JavaScript control. For instance, you can disallow pop up and pop-under windows without turning off JavaScript altogether.

    I'd still like to have site-by-site preferences wihtout having to edit the prefs.js file, but, what can you do? (i know... i know... write the damn code yourself...)

    • OK, this is just too cool! I hit all this sites I know have pop-ups... crack sites, free stuff, contests, etc, and nothing came up that shouldn't.

      Mozilla team - You guys have a HUGE thank you coming from me! Thank god for software which is written by the people who use it.
    • Maybe I'm just still waking up, but I've been looking for this feature for 30 minutes (after I've installed .9.7) and can't find it. Is it flaw that I can't find it under Prefs->Advanced? It does let me toggle JS all together but nothing else.
    • I'd still like to have site-by-site preferences wihtout having to edit the prefs.js file, but, what can you do?
      You could use this handly little preferences toolbar [xulplanet.com]. You can leave pop-ups disabled in general and then when you come across a site that you actually need pop-ups for, simply un-check the checkbox. And don't let the screenshot fool you - it allows you to very quickly turn on/off more than just the 4 preferences you see there (right clicking on the toolbar will give you a big selections of what checkboxes should appear).
    • being able to disable "change status bar text" is worth this update by itself if you ask me. It was cute when it first came out, but now days I really HATE sites with annoying moving status lines that don't let me see where in the hell a link goes.
  • OMG! Finally! Thankyou mozilla devs for getting this in, it is the one final thing that means I can get rid of crappy ol' netscape 4.x! Those of us stuck with email that is required to be encrypted (company mail etc) and who are linux users can now leave the realm of netscape 4.x!

    The UI is still very incomplete. It didn't seem to want to let me sign or encrypt email (which sucks) but I could read it, view my certs, and do other basic operations, which is all I need. The encrypting of mail is of course still needed, but I'm going to guess that the ui glitches (the menu item not recognizing that I'd selected "always encrypt") are going to be resolved in .9.7.1 or nightly builds.

    Again, great job mozilla! Thank you from this linux + s/mime user!

    (and no, the boss wouldn't let us just use pgp/gpg....)

  • 0.9.7 has new pop-up-stopper UI -- (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wideangle ( 169366 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @02:46AM (#2740694) Homepage
    -- though the wording [mozilla.org] needs a little work:
    Scripts and Windows
    x Enable Javascript
    x Open Windows by themselves
    x Move or resize existing windows
    x Make windows flip over or under other windows
    x Change status bar text
    x Change Images
    x Create or change cookies
    x Read cookies

    Can you guess which one stops pop-ups?
    Would a usability [bohmann.dk] expert [useit.com] know what half these prefs mean?

    Good job on the prefs, Moz-team, but please, hire Jakob Nielsen before 1.0 ships.

    • Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mpt ( 8295 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @05:56AM (#2740933) Homepage

      Hi there. I designed the interface [mozilla.org] for Mozillas Javascript prefs back in September, and Doron Rosenberg has spent the past couple of months implementing it [mozilla.org].

      the wording [mozilla.org] needs a little work

      Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.

      Can you guess which one stops pop-ups?

      None of them do. Thats why there isnt a checkbox labelled do pop-ups. Blocking pop-ups in toto would be pretty useless, because it would stop a large chunk of the Web from working properly.

      Think about it. <a href="http://foo.bar/" target="_new">foo</a> is a pop-up, and none of these prefs prevent that from working, because then the link would break completely nothing at all would happen when you clicked on it. <a onclick="javascript:window.open(whatever)">foo& lt;/a> is a pop-up, and none of these checkboxes prevent that from working either, for the same reason. (In both cases it would be nice if you could get the link to open in the same window rather than opening in a new window, but we dont have the back end to allow that yet.)

      What one of these checkboxes does let you do is stop windows from opening by themselves based on a timer, or when you navigate to or from a page. Thats the behavior that annoys people the most, since the new window is usually of no interest to them whatsoever. And whats the label for this checkbox? (Drum roll please ) Open windows by themselves.

      If you have a better idea of what to label that checkbox, Id be glad to read it theres been a lot of suggestions so far, but theyve all been either too wordy, too obscure, or (as in your case) just plain wrong.

      Good job on the prefs, Moz-team, but please, hire Jakob Nielsen before 1.0 ships.

      Hah. I wrote to Jakob Nielsen a year or so ago, asking if he was interested, and he didnt bother replying. I guess whining about sucky Web sites (or sucky mobile phones) is like shooting fish in a barrel, compared to coming up with Javascript prefs your mother would understand.

      -- mpt

      • Just an attempt:

        "Open windows by themselves"

        could be

        "Allow automatic pop-up windows"

        26 characters Vs. 30... not bad.

        The key is that 95% of the people would be looking for this option to stop "pop-ups", so there's little to no reason not to use that word. Yes it's not perfect, but that's why useability people freak out when programmers make dialog boxes, we're geeks. We think technically, not like a user. Give the users what they want.

        As for Jakob Nielson, every /. user reading this should email that whiny bitch and tell him to put his efforts where his mouth is and contribute to Mozilla. (Don't get me wrong, I like Jakob and his site/opinions, but he IS a beeeatch.)

        -Russ

      • Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TheSliver ( 242819 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @08:24AM (#2741063) Homepage


        Its always been relatively trivial to do that, I showed that more than a year ago and I know some have implemented similar techniques to prevent any window opening under any circumstances and show the link in the existing window.

        The problem with the wording is not that its inaccurate, its entirely accurate. The problem is that the user is searching for something to stop windows opening and so naturally grabs at whatever seems reasonable. After that assumption is made they are going to be satisfied 80% of the time but consider the actual behaviour a bug because windows can still be opened.

        Simon

      • Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chuck Messenger ( 320443 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @09:27AM (#2741179)

        If you have a better idea of what to label that checkbox, I'd be glad to read it -- there's been a lot of suggestions so far, but they've all been either too wordy, too obscure, or (as in your case) just plain wrong.


        How about "Enable pop-ups/pop-unders"?

        I think that would neatly capture the intent of this checkbox. In fact, what would be particularly nice about it is that, as time goes on, and other means are developed for defeating "pop-ups" (whatever people come to understand that to mean), it would be possible to roll that functionality into that pre-existing checkbox.

        Actually, here's what I _really_ think. You should leave all that fine-grained JavaScript control stuff as it is, and where it is (under Advanced). What is needed is an "enable pop-ups/pop-unders" checkbox in, say, the main navigator preferences screen. This is a "digestified" function, i.e. it may do various things, which are not precisely-defined, but whose intent is to defeat what people commonly refer to as "pop-ups" or "pop-unders".

      • Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Informative)

        by jeffehobbs ( 419930 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @11:05AM (#2741380) Homepage

        Well, for example, In MacOS X OmniWeb 4.1, the pop-up stopper preference text reads:

        "Scripts are allowed to open windows:"

        (and there are three choices)

        * always
        * only in response to a link being clicked
        * never

        and this seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. The word "scripts" could probably be changed to "web pages" or even "web sites" for better comprehesion by beginning users.

        ~jeff
      • Can't resist adding my 2c.

        All of the entries after the first (I'm going by what the poster wrote; I haven't run 0.9.7 myself) can be read as if prefixed with "Scripts are allowed to ...". So make that the heading! "Scripts and Windows" makes little sense, since most of the entries are unrelated to windows. This change would require that "Enable Javascript" be moved to its own section, which seems appropriate anyway.

        (I guess someone wanted "windows" in the heading so that people looking to disable ad windows would see it; but this is "advanced" configuration, and I think anyone going here would know that it's really a script preference.)

        On to the original matter: "Open windows by themselves" is gratuitously ambiguous. "by themselves" seems to go with "windows", which could either mean that windows open in a separate part of the screen ("by" as in location"); or that windows spontaneously open without external cause ("by" as in agent). Neither one is really right.

        If you change the heading as I suggest, it reads, "Scripts are allowed to open windows by themselves". This is an improvement, because "by" as in agent clearly refers to "scripts". But the "by" as in location interpretation is still possible, so it remains confusing.

        "Scripts are allowed to open windows automatically" reads with no ambiguity to me, and seems no worse in any way. So I would suggest "Open windows automatically" as the text for the checkbox. "Open windows without user input" isn't bad if you want to be more explicit.

      • At one point Mr. Nielsen wanted something like $25K just to talk to people. I don't know if the bubble collapse changed any of that, but it seems like the guy is oriented around letting out just as much knowledge as will make him a valuable commodity.

        Usability is such a weird thing, but it seems like it's something that's slowly infusing into the open source movement, which is great. It's one of those things that non-programmers can do if they have a knack for it. It's certainly one of those thngs that few programmers can do alone... programmers have to realize that they just think differently than the rest of the world.

        None of this should take anything away from your accomplishments, mpt: I want to genuinely thank you for doing what you do. If it seems like /.ers are whiny about these things, well sure, what AREN'T we whiny about? The bottom line is that Mozilla is far, far better for what you have done. Thank you, thank you, a million times thank you!
      • What about the preference to disable "Open on Load?" I've been using it, but it is not in the GUI. I don't want to disable the ability for javascript to open a new window, since there are sites that make legitimate use of it. What I *DO* want to disable is the ability for the bastards to open another window on opening or leaving their site.

        Will this preference make it to the GUI?

      • Re:Well go ahead, got any better ideas? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by slamb ( 119285 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @12:48PM (#2741631) Homepage

        Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.

        I don't like the options stated here:

        Scripts and Windows
        x Enable Javascript
        x Open Windows by themselves
        x Move or resize existing windows
        x Make windows flip over or under other windows
        x Change status bar text
        x Change Images
        x Create or change cookies
        x Read cookies

        I propose instead:

        Scripts and Windows
        x Enable Javascript
        Javascript code may:
        x Open windows on page load/unload (pop-up and pop-under ads)
        x Move and resize existing windows
        x Change window ordering (pop-under ads)
        x Change status bar text
        x Change images (mouseover highlighting)
        x Create and change cookies
        x Read cookies

        First, the other options definitely belong as a sub-item as the first one, disabled when it gets disabled. (If it's actually this way in the dialog, sorry, my Mozilla isn't quite new enough to have your feature. I'm going by the bug report.) There should be a little label to explain the wording of the subitems, since they are stated as what the code is doing ("open a window") rather than what you're doing ("allowing them to open a window").

        Second, I really don't like the "by themselves". Obviously everything in Javascript happens because of some event firing. I think on page load/unload is more clear. (Or some other way of precisely stating what events you're talking about.)

        Third, it has in parenthesis a common use of several features. This should give a better understanding of what you'll be breaking.

  • I check the mozillazine.org and the mozilla site from time to time, and noticed today they've released another milestone just in time, for the first time!
    If you take a look at the mozilla development roadmap [mozilla.org], you'll believe me. Don't blame me for another exact release you see (0.9.5), 'cause .9.4 adn .9.5 were intended to be so, in order to be used for netscape 6.x products, and the schedule itself was changed. See freeze & branch date for 0.9.4 & 0.9.5, and you'll believe me again.
    Anyway, the mozilla dev team have made a great work in a great manner, for many this could be a cool gift for the season. Thank you, and have a nice vacation everybody.

  • Only two more releases before they... umm... add another digit of precision to the version number. :)

  • Mozilla is faster than IE6 now (Score:3, Redundant)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @03:14AM (#2740758) Journal
    *Note, im talking about windows.

    Ive been using mozilla for awhile now, and Im very very impressed with how it just gets better. It renders quicker the IE6 which is impressive, and the Tab feature (people call an Opera ripoff) is great. You can install it into a directory with an older version of mozilla, it doesnt create a new secure directory. That salt directory it made was rather annoying.

    Using it as a daily browser for both work and home, I do have a few problems with it. Some javascripts dont work with internal business sites. (LiveLink and Eroom which we use for documents and communications) No spell checker yet. (But im told its coming.)

    And at home, I cant use my online banking with it, but everything else seems to work fine.

    Newsgroups reader seems to be work in progress, the nightly builds seem to have a few bugs. But I am downloading the daily builds and it could be me.

    BTW, I could swear the 0.9.7 directory was on ftp.mozilla.org for the last couple days.

    -
    I'm too shy to express my sexual needs except over the phone to people I don't know. - Garry Shandling
    • You can't use online banking because your bank is boneheaded.

      Of the banks I am working with, Wells Fargo doesn't work (not even with Netscape 6) while American Express, Discover and AT&T work just fine.
      • Wells Fargo does work, but not completely. Currently there are three open bugs in our database having to do with this site.

        Two of them are Evangelism bugs, which means that Wells Fargo are using non-standard (or even invalid) standards that Mozilla does not support (such as ).

        See the bugs here:
        * http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65110
        * http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87351

        And finally, there is one Mozilla bug that is triggered with this site, although quite minor; you are not able to tab through all the widgets on the site:
        * http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114119

        Hope this helps.
    • Using it as a daily browser for both work and home, I do have a few problems with it. Some javascripts dont work with internal business sites. (LiveLink and Eroom which we use for documents and communications) No spell checker yet. (But im told its coming.)

      Excuse me? A spell checker? It's a browser. Say it slowly. BROWSER. What are you, a grammar nazi, spell-checking everyone's webpages now?

    • and the Tab feature (people call an Opera ripoff) is great.

      Who's calling it an Opera ripoff? I started a thread [google.com] about it on the Mozilla newsgroups way back in 1999.
  • Roadmap information:
    http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html
    http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html

    On the Mozilla roadmap, it shows Mozilla 1.0 following the same start, freeze, release timeline as the rest of the builds. I personally feel it should be started, frozen for twice as long as usual with drivers@mozilla.org being the only ones who can approve changes, then submitted to longer-than-normal testing period.

    I would also like to see better documentation, and improved features. I think this release stands for Mozilla, and it should be something Mozilla.org should be proud of. We shouldn't rush into it. I would be perfectly happy if it wasn't released until the end of summer, 2002.

    What do you want to see in Mozilla 1.0? Do you agree it should follow an extended schedule compared to most milestones? What features would you like to see improved or added?

    You can also talk on newsgroups like netscape.public.mozilla.general

    Let's make Mozilla 1.0 fantastic!

    • Stable, Documented API (Score:5, Interesting)

      by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday December 22, 2001 @05:16AM (#2740894) Homepage
      Honestly, I want the core frozen absolutely solid. Then declare 1.0. While I love all the features that have been put in to the UI, what really needs to happen for 1.0 in my opinion is to stabilize that API so people can start coding around the platform.

      The original vision is still critical, and I want to see more projects like the fantastic pubmed [mozdev.org]. These things are going to be what really kicks mozilla in to high gear. I really believe that third party stuff like this will make mozilla worth having.

      1.0 is all about stability. The browser itself is certainly stable enough to go 1.0. You can add the UI enhancements for 1.1, but make the core solid so people have the platform. Then we'll start to get the plugins that we so desperately need too.
    • Is there a "features" bug list? I was thinking, we're all registered bug reporters (right?), and if there were an easily accessible list of major "feature" bugs, then we could just cast our votes for the bugs in that list.


    • In that exact order.
      Freeze it for 1 month and work on bug fixes, and for a month work on just increasing its speed.

      The only thing Mozilla needs is speed and stability, it has the power.

  • Thanks Guys (Score:3)

    by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday December 22, 2001 @03:46AM (#2740790) Homepage
    I just wanted to weigh in my thanks. I know it's reduntant and all, but I know the moz team reads the site (hi Asa!) and I just wanted to say thanks for the great browser. I use it in conjunction with Konqueror at home, and it's my browser of choice on my windows partition and at work. I've been amazed at how much it's progressed, and now my most waited for feature (javascript prefs panel) is in! Thanks you guys. I'm rooting for you!
  • I'm on linux and I had Mozilla 0.94 installed. I at least expected the Mozilla installer to keep my bookmarks but this was unfortunatelly not true :-(

    This sounds to me like a serious bug. When upgrading I don't want my bookmarks to be removed. All other settings (like subscribed newsgroups, proxy settings, mail folders, and even the history) are preserved. But not the bookmarks!

    Greetings,

  • Mozilla has been released ! (Score:4, Funny)

    by J.D. Hogg ( 545364 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @04:06AM (#2740813) Homepage
    It's true, I can prove it, I took a picture of it earlier this afternoon :

    o . . _.-_
    o __.'..o."-.
    o . . . .,,,'
    o. . ._-_ ^^;
    o _-\" . `""
    o. .,}

  • This is the first version that I've tried with working drop lists. Until now, they had they same bug that the menus used to have: after clicking on them, they disappeared before the mouse got over the drop down part. I dunno if it was to do with my X-Mouse policy (TweakUI), but it made Mozilla extremely annoying. Thank you.
  • I have a problem with Mozilla 9.6 on Windoze, but I'm not sure it's a bug.

    I visit a lot of Cyrillic sites, and the header of the window that is encoded in cyrillic is always shown as a set of question marks. Even worse, when I bookmark such a site, the letters in Bookmarks are not shown as cyrillic but as additional latin symbols (the same way as if a cyrillic page is shown in Western encoding).

    Is it Mozilla or just silly me? ;-)


  • This site Chess Line [cjb.net] totally screws up now in the newest mozilla

  • Need to make Microsoft support more standards (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22, 2001 @07:47AM (#2741030)
    I've been using nightly builds and home cvs builds of Mozilla on Linux for some time now. It's support for CSS and the W3C box model leads a great deal of people into believing that Mozilla has many bugs because IE5/6 renders there pages fine. They don't realise it's IE5/6 rendering it wrong because their code doesn't do what they mean it to do...

    If there is one thing I'd like to see improved in the next release of IE it's CSS selector support. CSS Selectors level 3 is basically finished, Mozilla supports most level 2 selectors, and yet IE6 trails with very limited support. Yes, you can select an element that is within another element (descendant selectors) but IE6 lacks support for a huge array of other selectors such as child, sibling and selectors based on attribute value(s).

    This selectors point may seem very trivial to web authors used to writing for IE because they merely give an element a class and write a new rule for it. But that bloats the HTML/XML significantly, and can give the programmer a headache, not forgetting the problems of handling inheritance propeties.

    With CSS2 selectors, I can say, td[class ~= "body"] > p:first-child { font-weight: bolder; } and have the first paragraph child of a table cell who's class attribute contains a value "body" go bolder. I can't do that in IE6 as effectively.

    C'mon Microsoft, you helped create the selectors standard, now let's see you implement it!

  • Mozilla Release vs. Mozilla Nightly (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zach` ( 71927 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @09:39AM (#2741208)
    Oddly enough, Mozilla crashed and burned after I installed the 0.9.7 release (win32). It gave me an error when I first tried to launch it that "a device attached to the system is not functioning" and that there was a file missing "linked to export XPCOM.DLL."

    So I installed Linux. Haha, no. I first searched the bug database and didn't find anything on either of the error messages. Uninstalled via Control Panel, which gave me another error, something about an uninstall log and the Registry. I said, screw it, and just deleted the c:\program files\mozilla.org folder. Wasn't ready to give up yet, so I went to mozilla.org and downloaded the latest nightly build.

    Installed that and Mozilla has been working perfectly. It's fantastic, and my father-in-law, who was very fond of Netscape and has suffered the past year and a half with IE, absolutely loves it.

    I'm not sure what the differences between the 0.9.7 release and the nightly build I downloaded are; I'm just happy I got the browser to work -- it's fantastic. If it's of any interest, when I was first downloading Mozilla, I used the 209kb net installer. It said it found CRC errors when it was verifying the files, but redownloaded them. Perhaps my problems stemmed from that... but the nightly is holding its own with IE right now (IMHO).

  • Back button behavior? (Score:2, Informative)

    by siglercm ( 6059 )
    For me, the behavoir of the back button (or pop-up) has changed from 0.9.6 to 0.9.7. Previously, Back would take you back one frame in a website using (yuck) frames. Now it takes you back to the previous web site, totally off the one you're on. And I prefer the "back one frame" behavior.

    Please tell me if I'm a doofus and there's a setting that controls this. I can't find any such thing. Or is this the "correct" behavior of the Back button? TIA.

  • Edit boxes in mozilla (esp. MailNews) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MadAndy ( 122592 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @10:18AM (#2741287)
    Does anybody else still see strange behaviour with text and the cursor at the end of lines when composing plaintext email in mozilla? If for example I click at the end of a long line of text in a message and press RETURN to insert a single blank line Moz inserts two lines instead, and only if I haven't already inserted a line there before.

    I tried looking for it in bugzilla but couldn't spot it - I suspect I'm probably searching for the wrong thing though. Maybe it's something wrong with my setup?

    Apart from that, it's all coming along rather well and I use it as my main browser and mail client on my primary work machine. The only real thing left from my point of view is to trim down on the memory leakage (eg try switching between IMAP folders with the welcome page visible in the preview pane and watch Moz chew another 30-50k).

  • The past few nightlies, and also 0.9.7 now kill all the text in the UI (back, forward, etc buttons) after one run. Oddly enough, running as root here is fine. Could be a number of things. *sigh*. I really wish they'd stop breaking things that once worked.
  • I haven't had much luck with previous releases (or nightlies, for that matter) under Linux. Konqueror still holds down its position as my favorite browser over there, for a variety of reasons.

    But I just got the 0.9.7 binary for OS X, and it kicks all ass. Finally, a Mozilla that is stable, fast, and featureful enough for daily use has been released... and I now have an outstanding (and [Ff]ree!) browser I can use on this OS.

    Bye bye, IE. Bye bye, OmniWeb. Thanks, Mozilla team!

  • native widgets? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tim_maroney ( 239442 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @01:33PM (#2741753) Homepage
    The strangest thing I noticed about the new Mozilla for the Mac is that it seems to be using some native widgets in the UI. Bring up Preferences and what ho, those are Macintosh buttons, check boxes, and radio buttons, not the clunky Mozilla ones. But look on a form page and you'll still see the boxy Mozilla controls.

    Is there a partial adoption of native widgets in progress? Bug 112980 [mozilla.org] seems to imply so but details are scanty. The bug does not even have a description, only a title and comments.

    If the Mozilla team has finally caught on to the importance of respecting platform UI standards, though, hats off to them.

    Tim
  • I thought a lot of you might find this interesting.
    In Windows 2000, I've checked my Hotmail account with both Mozilla and I.E. Surprisingly, Microsoft's own hotmail website works better with Mozilla than with their own IE browser!

    Try it yourself when you get a bunch of messages that need to be deleted:
    Check the checkboxes for the messages you want to delete. Mozilla will react instantly, while IE lags 5-10 seconds to react to the checkbox. Am I the only one who has that problem in IE at the Hotmail website?

    This happens for me on a BP6 with dual 533 Celerons with 512 Megs of PC133 - Perhaps it's time to upgrade ;)

  • VIEW SOURCE still sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Saturday December 22, 2001 @02:45PM (#2741930) Homepage
    It *seems* that when I "view source", the browser hits the server to download another copy. I don't WANT *another* copy - I want to the see the source of what is being rendered in the browser. With many web-based apps, doing another request (especially without resending the proper POST info, etc) will give back different results.

    The same behaviour was a huge problem for printing in Netscape. Rather than print what was in the browser's memory and on the screen, netscape would do a GET request on the URL. If it didn't come back with the right results - oh well! Too bad...

    Why on earth can't we simply see what's in the browser's memory already? It seems this is the EASY thing to do and Netscape (and now Mozilla) are unnecessarily complicating the matter.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close