| SillyDog701 Forums |
| Author |
Message |
ChrisI
Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11915
|
 21 Apr, 2004 10:33 pm |
[sdp=31101] |
|
According to release notes, some interesting new features:
* A new option to prevent sites using Javascript to block the browser's context menu.
* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.
* Date handling, especially on OS X, has been improved.
* Support for the CSS3 opacity property.
Hmm, I can't see any new icons for files associated with Mozilla. At least not in my Mac.
As for the CSS3 opacity (transparency) property, I'm still unable to verify it.
Safari still seems faster than Mozilla 1.7 RC1, and the opacity property can be achieved easily.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisI
Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
|
| 21 Apr, 2004 11:03 pm |
[sdp=31103] |
|
I'm pretty sure there are no new features since Mozilla 1.7 Beta. The trunk was frozen until the 1.7 branch was created. Anything after Beta is bug fixes.
What that means is, in terms of the feature-set, you're looking at it.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DJGM
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 4338
Location: Manchester, England, UK
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 3:33 am |
[sdp=31108] |
|
I'm running Mozilla 1.7RC1 now. I'm a bit surprised that the UA string still shows "rv:1.7b".
Aside from that very minor concern, everything seems to be working fine with this build . . .
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Mozilla = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Microsoft Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11915
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 4:27 am |
[sdp=31111] |
|
The new features I listed was from the 1.7 RC1 release notes page (selected).
 
What I said was, with the understanding of everything published can be challenged, I doubt the feature lists in 1.7 RC1 Release Notes page.
The fact: I cannot see any new icon sets, and I cannot get the claimed opacity working. IF after intensive testing/verifying (which I don't have time yet), and still unable to produce what they claimed, creditability of documentation from Mozilla will be damaged.
I hope I was wrong.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisI
Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 5:20 am |
[sdp=31113] |
|
| Antony wrote: |  The new features I listed was from the 1.7 RC1 release notes page (selected). |
Have a look at the Mozilla 1.7 Beta README.html, and the 1.7 Alpha README.html. You'll then notice that the 1.7 Release Candidate 1 README.html (which is what you cited) is just an amalgamation of the two. These are supposed to be candidates for the final release, who's README.html will contain what's new since Mozilla 1.6. As I said, no new features.
| Antony wrote: | | I cannot see any new icon sets, |
Have a look in \Mozilla\chrome\icons\default\.
The new icons are for file types that you can assign Mozilla as the default app. This includes HTML files, XUL files, XML files, Script files, GIF files, JPEG files, and other image files. Prior to Mozilla 1.7Beta, those files would just get the generic Mozilla icon, making it difficult for those with extensions hidden to identify the file type. I assume the reason you haven't noticed the icons is because you don't have Mozilla set to handle any of those file types.
| Antony wrote: | | and I cannot get the claimed opacity working. |
Give out your testcase, and let others run it.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandrake
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 3637
Location: Australia
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 6:18 am |
[sdp=31115] |
|
I can see the new icons, on Windows XP, I've not tried yet on SuSE Linux 9.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Antec 1200 Case | Core 2 Duo E8200 | Gigabyte X48-DS4 | 1.91TB HDD | 4GB G-Skill/Kingston DDR2-800 | HIS Radeon 4870 Xfire | Zalman 850W PSU | Auzen X-Fi Prelude | Logitech Z-2300 Speakers | Sony 1080P 40" HDTV | MS Natural MultiMedia Keyboard | MS Habu Gaming Mouse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11915
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 6:45 am |
[sdp=31119] |
|
Thank you very much for clarifying.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Antony wrote: | | I cannot see any new icon sets, |
Have a look in \Mozilla\chrome\icons\default\.
The new icons are for file types that you can assign Mozilla as the default app. This includes HTML files, XUL files, XML files, Script files, GIF files, JPEG files, and other image files. Prior to Mozilla 1.7Beta, those files would just get the generic Mozilla icon, making it difficult for those with extensions hidden to identify the file type. I assume the reason you haven't noticed the icons is because you don't have Mozilla set to handle any of those file types. |
What the Release Notes claimed:
* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.
And of course i set the Mozilla to handle some files before I made previous posts.
Allow me to show you graphically,
(icon, by default, Preview) and (icon, set to Safari)
 
(icon, set to QuickTime) and (icon, set to MSIE)
 
(icon, set to Photoshop Elements 2)
Now, the file type icon, when I set the default application to Mozilla 1.7 RC1. It is the default icon, not any (new) Mozilla icon.
I have proof to question Mozilla.Org's documentation. The documentation claimed to have new icon sets, however, my screenshots proved it was not the case. I stand correct.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Antony wrote: | | and I cannot get the claimed opacity working. |
Give out your testcase, and let others run it. |
Hmm, in the original post (of this very thread),
| ChrisI wrote: | | Help them make Mozilla 1.7 the best Mozilla release ever by grabbing RC 1 and pushing it to the limit. |
And I am reporting my observation.
Why can't I use the newly and exciting support - Opacity?
SillyDog701 has been using Opacity for quite a while, as I mentioned in Mozilla 1.7 Beta Released (thread), Safari 1.1/Panther supports W3C's Opacity first. (this is also reported by Frank Limbacher.) SillyDog701's implementation of W3C's Opacity works well for Safari1.1/Panther. And why should SillyDog701 not apply the new feature or support Mozilla claimed (Mozilla 1.7 RC1) was able to handle?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hendikins
Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 615
Location: All stations to Zig Zag via the North Shore Line
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 8:47 am |
[sdp=31127] |
|
There are new Win32 icons. There may need to be some clarification if there are no new MacOS X ones, however.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.2; Linux 2.4.21-199-smp4G; X11; i686; en_US, en) (KHTML, like Gecko)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11915
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 9:41 am |
[sdp=31129] |
|
In order to make a record - my questioning on Mozilla.org's documentation stands correct, I've uploaded the original screenshot, unresized, no modifications in PNG format (161KB). (Taken 22nd April 2004, 8:14PM, AEST)
In case they change Release Notes.
A resized one is shown below.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisI
Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 3:59 pm |
[sdp=31153] |
|
| Antony wrote: |
What the Release Notes claimed:
* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.
And of course i set the Mozilla to handle some files before I made previous posts.
Allow me to show you graphically,
I have proof to question Mozilla.Org's documentation. The documentation claimed to have new icon sets, however, my screenshots proved it was not the case. I stand correct. |
Not yet. First you have to go to your Mozilla installation directory and verify if the icons are in existence. Second, you have to give details about how you changed the setting. Did you use the drop down menu under Open with: or did you use the Mozilla preferences menu? Third, and most importantly, it needs to be verified by another MAC user, possibly Linux if the icons are only for Windows users.
| Antony wrote: | | ChrisI wrote: | | Antony wrote: | | and I cannot get the claimed opacity working. |
Give out your testcase, and let others run it. |
Hmm, in the original post (of this very thread), |
In Mozilla QA testing, a testcase is a series of actions to test a bug fix or new feature. For instance, when implementing the Back button, a testcase would be:
1. Open the Mozilla browser window
2. Go to a webpage (even better to specify a URL. I usually use www.yahoo.com)
3. From the first web page go to a different web page. (www.google.com)
4. Click on the Back Button.
If the browser goes back to the URL in step 2 (yahoo.com), the patch has passed the test. If it does anything else, the patch has failed the test.
Instead of reporting results, you need to specify where to go, what to look for, and what constitutes passing the test.
For more on testcases see: http://www.mozilla.org/quality/smoketests/
A quick look at the changelog for Mozilla 1.7Beta, and you'll find
Bug228441 - Mac builds don't render contents with -moz-opacity < 1.0
Bug236053 - opacity on table cells causes garbage to be painted
Bug228861 - Opacity ignored when containing block is not visible
Bug93156 - Implement 'opacity' according to the spec (transparency)
There you'll find details on what was implemented, and what their test cases were.
| Antony wrote: | | ChrisI wrote: | | Help them make Mozilla 1.7 the best Mozilla release ever by grabbing RC 1 and pushing it to the limit. |
And I am reporting my observation. |
To whom? User support volunteers? To report a bug, go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ .
| Antony wrote: | Why can't I use the newly and exciting support - Opacity?
SillyDog701 has been using Opacity for quite a while, as I mentioned in Mozilla 1.7 Beta Released (thread), Safari 1.1/Panther supports W3C's Opacity first. (this is also reported by Frank Limbacher.) SillyDog701's implementation of W3C's Opacity works well for Safari1.1/Panther. |
Why do you care who supported it first? What does that have to do with implementing it in Mozilla?| Antony wrote: | | And why should SillyDog701 not apply the new feature or support Mozilla claimed (Mozilla 1.7 RC1) was able to handle? |
Who said you shouldn't?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jksteinhauer
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 361
Location: Georgia
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 8:10 pm |
[sdp=31167] |
|
Is it my imagination or has anyone else noticed a slight speed increase in overall performance and page loading with RC1? My install still shows as 1.7b as well.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jksteinhauer
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 361
Location: Georgia
|
| 22 Apr, 2004 10:02 pm |
[sdp=31183] |
|
| jksteinhauer wrote: | | Is it my imagination or has anyone else noticed a slight speed increase in overall performance and page loading with RC1? My install still shows as 1.7b as well. |
Just finished reading the 'Read Me' on RC1. Yep, it is quicker, overall. It wasn't my imagination afterall. Also was brought to my attention that 'smooth scrolling' was available with RC1.; one of the features of FireFox (and Opera) I rather liked, glad to find it now in the Suite.
Pretty soon we'll all be calling it 'The Sweet'.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11915
|
| 23 Apr, 2004 7:34 am |
[sdp=31198] |
|
| ChrisI wrote: | | Antony wrote: |
What the Release Notes claimed:
* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.
And of course i set the Mozilla to handle some files before I made previous posts.
Allow me to show you graphically,
[...]
I have proof to question Mozilla.Org's documentation. The documentation claimed to have new icon sets, however, my screenshots proved it was not the case. I stand correct. |
Not yet. First you have to go to your Mozilla installation directory and verify if the icons are in existence. Second, you have to give details about how you changed the setting. Did you use the drop down menu under Open with: or did you use the Mozilla preferences menu? Third, and most importantly, it needs to be verified by another MAC user, possibly Linux if the icons are only for Windows users. |
What?
Let me answer it section by section.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Not yet. First you have to go to your Mozilla installation directory and verify if the icons are in existence. |
Not yet?
Mozilla.org's Release Notes for Mozilla 1.7 RC1 said
* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Second, you have to give details about how you changed the setting. Did you use the drop down menu under Open with: or did you use the Mozilla preferences menu? |
Screenshots I posted tells all.
What's the difference between the using the “Get Info” window or going through an application's Preference?
Why shall I give more detail on how I changed the setting?
I use the standard Mac way to change the file association.
I used the straight forward Mac way to change the settings.
Okay, you want detail, open up the Get Info window of any particular or a group of file, then as shown in screenshots in few post above. Change the application associated it (a.k.a. the Open with). I can only specify to use that application to handle all files having the same extension by clicking “Change All”.
And how do you open up the Get Info window? There are many ways. You can get it from Finder's menubar, the file's contextual menu, or simply  + i
Data Fork (in OS X and Carbon) or Resource Fork (in earlier Mac OS) will take care of handling applications and all related issues, including file icon.
That's a simple, recommended and legal step to change the file association in Mac 
Also, most applications do not have file association configuration in each application's Preference.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Third, and most importantly, it needs to be verified by another MAC user, possibly Linux if the icons are only for Windows users. |
Two issues...
1. Seems like you don't believe my report. It's a brand new Mac I bought last with files copied from my old Mac. The newly installed operating systems and some applications. Also, I haven't demeaned myself.
2. I never said those new icons were for Windows only. What I said was Mozilla.Org's documentation was not true. Allow me to repeat, Mozilla.org's Release Notes for Mozilla 1.7 RC1 said “* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.”
It clearly was not true, hence I stand correct.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Instead of reporting results, you need to specify where to go, what to look for, and what constitutes passing the test. |
What's wrong with reporting results?
SillyDog701 has always encouraged users to share their experience and report their results to other users.
| ChrisI wrote: | | Antony wrote: | | ChrisI wrote: | | Help them make Mozilla 1.7 the best Mozilla release ever by grabbing RC 1 and pushing it to the limit. |
And I am reporting my observation. |
To whom? User support volunteers? To report a bug, go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ . |
When did I say I was reporting a bug? Why can't I let other user support volunteers realise that they shouldn't take the words from Mozilla.org's documentation without verifying?
| ChrisI wrote: | | Antony wrote: | Why can't I use the newly and exciting support - Opacity?
SillyDog701 has been using Opacity for quite a while, as I mentioned in Mozilla 1.7 Beta Released (thread), Safari 1.1/Panther supports W3C's Opacity first. (this is also reported by Frank Limbacher.) SillyDog701's implementation of W3C's Opacity works well for Safari1.1/Panther. |
Why do you care who supported it first? What does that have to do with implementing it in Mozilla? |
To let those over-excited Mozilla supporters, particularly those who believe open-source is always the best, and is everything, realise Safari has it first, and Safari does it better. Safari is not open source, strictly speaking. Safari uses a huge subsets of Apple's own technologies.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/124 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisI
Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
|
| 23 Apr, 2004 9:48 am |
[sdp=31206] |
|
| Antony wrote: | Screenshots I posted tells all.
What's the difference between the using the “Get Info” window or going through an application's Preference?
Why shall I give more detail on how I changed the setting?
snip
1. Seems like you don't believe my report. It's a brand new Mac I bought last with files copied from my old Mac. The newly installed operating systems and some applications. Also, I haven't demeaned myself.
2. I never said those new icons were for Windows only. What I said was Mozilla.Org's documentation was not true. Allow me to repeat, Mozilla.org's Release Notes for Mozilla 1.7 RC1 said “* A new set of icons for files that are associated with Mozilla.”
It clearly was not true, hence I stand correct.
snip
What's wrong with reporting results?
SillyDog701 has always encouraged users to share their experience and report their results to other users. |
Reporting results to phantom processes without details helps no-one. I could have very well replied to you with "Well, I see the icons here, so the documentation is correct and you are incorrect." It's as if someone reported that Mozilla took 10 minutes to load, and ran too slow to use, but forgot to mention the fact that they were on a Pentium 100 w/Win95.
It must be established what the icons are for, where to find them, and how one should get them to appear, as well as details like which operating system is being used, which installer was used and other system specs. One of those may not apply to MAC, but it's still important. There's always a possibility that one's problem could be local, so verification from someone else is needed.
Have you looked in your Mozilla directory to see if the icons are in existence? Have you tried setting Mozilla as the default app via the Mozilla prefs menu? If you try that, and it works, don't you think that info would be valuable to users? Don't you think it should be included in your report?
| Antony wrote: | | ChrisI wrote: | | Why do you care who supported it first? What does that have to do with implementing it in Mozilla? |
To let those over-excited Mozilla supporters, particularly those who believe open-source is always the best, and is everything, realise Safari has it first, and Safari does it better. Safari is not open source, strictly speaking. Safari uses a huge subsets of Apple's own technologies. |
Is this a user support forum or a development philosophy evangelist forum?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Search
Log in
Search | FAQ | Rules and Policies
| MozInfo701 - Mozilla Information Centre
| SD701 Open Directory
| Message Board Map
| download Netscape
