Mozilla 1.7RC3 Here Now!

page 1, 2  next
You are here:  SillyDog701 > Message Centre > Firefox, SeaMonkey and Netscape > [sdt=5934]
SillyDog701 Forums
Author Message
profman
Moderator


Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 1443
08 Jun, 2004 7:39 pm Mozilla 1.7RC3 Here Now! [sdp=34635]  
The folder, /pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.7rc3 is now existant on the Mozilla ftp server. The files are appearing as I type this post.

The URL http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.7rc3/ goes to Release notes for Mozilla 1.7.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
profman, the mad chemist
Moderator of SillyDog Forums
User of Thunderbird 2.0.0.x & Firefox 2.0.0.x
Try Forum Search or Visit NETSCAPE (+ more) SOLUTIONS
Back to top profile
Wellander
SUSPENDED


Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2576
08 Jun, 2004 8:14 pm [sdp=34640]  
Hi,
Thank you for Info.
I just installed it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
Back to top profile
Ramona
Moderator


Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 2360
Location: Midwest USA
08 Jun, 2004 8:18 pm [sdp=34643]  
Thanks profman! I'm now downloading the new Release...

Ramona Smile

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
RAMONA
Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox Solutions
Back to top profile
Antony
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11992
08 Jun, 2004 9:42 pm [sdp=34662]  
under the Mozilla 1.7RC3's What's New release notes
Quote:
(Under the Hood)
Very wide images (more than 4095px) will now display on Mac.

What's the point of that?
The maximum desktop (manageable) width allowed in current Mac OS X is 4000 pixels, according to Apple tech notes
“Mac OS X allows a maximum desktop display width of 4000 pixels across all displays.”
It is not saying you can't go beyond 4000 pixels, but you can't but icons beyond that. Desktop pictures will work, and Applications can still open beyond 4000 pixels. But there's no much point of doing so.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
MozInfo701 | MacCentre701 | AntBlog701 | don't steal music.
Back to top profile website
Antony
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11992
08 Jun, 2004 9:57 pm [sdp=34664]  
Thanks profman,

Our MozInfo701 reported this before the front page of Mozilla.org and MozillaZine.org. Smile

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
MozInfo701 | MacCentre701 | AntBlog701 | don't steal music.
Back to top profile website
DJGM
diamond member


Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 4338
Location: Manchester, England, UK
08 Jun, 2004 10:06 pm [sdp=34666]  
As I type this, even MozillaNews hasn't published an article about the latest 1.7 RC yet.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
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 profile website
Andrew T.
diamond member


Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea
08 Jun, 2004 10:21 pm [sdp=34670]  
So far, Mozilla 1.7 Release Candidate 3 appears to be exactly the same as Release Candidate 2 in every single way, save a later build ID string and fewer bugs. Even so, this release was essential to development as well as the last step before the greatly-anticipated final release of Mozilla 1.7.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
Last edited by Andrew T. on 08 Jun, 2004 11:23 pm; edited once(1)
Back to top profile
profman
Moderator


Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 1443
08 Jun, 2004 10:58 pm [sdp=34677]  
Asa recently made a newsgroup post, entitled 1.7 status update, in which he predicts that Mozilla 1.7 Final could be out one week from 6/8/2004. This should make next Tuesday, June 15, the release date, although these dates have a habit of being pushed a bit later. The current Mozilla 1.7 Release Status gives June 11 as the anticipated release date for Mozilla 1.7 Final.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
profman, the mad chemist
Moderator of SillyDog Forums
User of Thunderbird 2.0.0.x & Firefox 2.0.0.x
Try Forum Search or Visit NETSCAPE (+ more) SOLUTIONS
Back to top profile
ChrisI
Mozilla Champion


Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
08 Jun, 2004 11:51 pm [sdp=34680]  
profman wrote:
Asa recently made a newsgroup post, entitled 1.7 status update, in which he predicts that Mozilla 1.7 Final could be out one week from 6/8/2004. This should make next Tuesday, June 15, the release date, although these dates have a habit of being pushed a bit later. The current Mozilla 1.7 Release Status gives June 11 as the anticipated release date for Mozilla 1.7 Final.
"If all goes well..."
Every status update will contain that preface. Smile

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately.
Back to top profile website
ChrisI
Mozilla Champion


Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
08 Jun, 2004 11:58 pm [sdp=34681]  
Antony wrote:
under the Mozilla 1.7RC3's What's New release notes
Quote:
(Under the Hood)
Very wide images (more than 4095px) will now display on Mac.
What's the point of that?
The maximum desktop (manageable) width allowed in current Mac OS X is 4000 pixels, according to Apple tech notes
“Mac OS X allows a maximum desktop display width of 4000 pixels across all displays.”
It is not saying you can't go beyond 4000 pixels, but you can't but icons beyond that. Desktop pictures will work, and Applications can still open beyond 4000 pixels. But there's no much point of doing so.
Here's the bug:
Bug 113406: Mac can't handle images >4095 pixels

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately.
Back to top profile website
Antony
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11992
09 Jun, 2004 1:33 am [sdp=34683]  
Thanks Chris,
I guess you did not get what I meant, why bother with images larger than 4000 pixels?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
MozInfo701 | MacCentre701 | AntBlog701 | don't steal music.
Back to top profile website
ryaxnb
senior member

Ryan
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 92
Location: Felton, CA
09 Jun, 2004 12:32 pm [sdp=34730]  
Antony wrote:
under the Mozilla 1.7RC3's What's New release notes
Quote:
(Under the Hood)
Very wide images (more than 4095px) will now display on Mac.

What's the point of that?
The maximum desktop (manageable) width allowed in current Mac OS X is 4000 pixels, according to Apple tech notes
“Mac OS X allows a maximum desktop display width of 4000 pixels across all displays.”
It is not saying you can't go beyond 4000 pixels, but you can't but icons beyond that. Desktop pictures will work, and Applications can still open beyond 4000 pixels. But there's no much point of doing so.

Well, two things:
* There is some point to opening apps really wide. You could display a full-size (1000 pixel) web browser window alongside a huge (2000 pixel) Photoshop window and palettes, and still have 1000 pixels for Quark.

Also, there is a point to images, say, 6000 pix wide. How about a comphrensive map of the USA? People could simply use a horizontal scroll bar to scroll through it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
Trainable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Back to top profile
ChrisI
Mozilla Champion


Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
09 Jun, 2004 3:07 pm [sdp=34754]  
Note to extension users:
Some of you may have noticed that if you click on a XPI file, residing anywhere other than mozilla.org, mozdev.org, texturizer.net, or your hard drive, nothing will happen.

To prevent users from installing malicious code unintentionally, extensions and add-ons now have a whitelist. To add a site to the list, enter about:config in the browser location bar. Search for the pref xpinstall.whitelist.add; and via the context menu, select Modify. When adding a site, just use the top level domain, without the prefixes (netscape.com).

The entire list is kept in the file hostperm.1 residing in your profile folder.

For more info, see Bug 240552: Make nsInstallTrigger::UpdateEnabled check with permission manager

Edit: You can disable the feature by setting xpinstall.whitelist.required to false

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately.

Last edited by ChrisI on 09 Jun, 2004 6:16 pm; edited once(1)
Back to top profile website
DJGM
diamond member


Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 4338
Location: Manchester, England, UK
09 Jun, 2004 4:37 pm [sdp=34767]  
ChrisI wrote:

Note to extension users:
Some of you may have noticed that if you click on a XPI file, residing anywhere other
than mozilla.org, mozdev.org, texturizer.net, or your hard drive, nothing will happen.


While, in the most part, that is certainly a good thing, and will help to prevent what I would refer to
as "XPI abuse" (inserting some sort of malicious code or dodgy executable file into an XPI file) this
could well have negative consequences, for certain useful third party extensions that don't have
their files hosted at any of the aforementioned sites, such as the popular Home Button add-on.



What exactly is likely happen with these third party add-on projects. Are they likely to be
persuaded to have their files hosted at any of the aforementioned sites where applicable?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
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 profile website
ChrisI
Mozilla Champion


Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Toronto
09 Jun, 2004 6:29 pm [sdp=34782]  
DJGM wrote:
What exactly is likely happen with these third party add-on projects. Are they likely to be
persuaded to have their files hosted at any of the aforementioned sites where applicable?
I don't know. This stuff is brand new, just implemented on Monday (Now we know what was holding up RC3).

Right now now, my best guess is that third party sites will put a message on their installation page on how to add it.

Ongoing discussion about the whitelist can be found here.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
Chris I
Please do not send me tech support questions privately.
Back to top profile website
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Forum Index > Firefox, SeaMonkey and Netscape All times are CST (GMT -6)
page 1 of 2 page 1, 2  next
To add your questions, comments, and for more features and more, please join SillyDog701 Message Centre. It's free! This is SillyDog 701 Message Centre (SD701 Forums).
Harley Davidson saddle bags - shop online for harley davidson parts & accessories at 20% discount.
Buy Text Links - buy and/or sell text link ads.

Apple iTunes, Download hit movies iTunes .Mac

*Search | FAQ | Rules and Policies | MozInfo701 - Mozilla Information Centre | SD701 Open Directory | Message Board Map | download Netscape