OSNews

I maybe wrong but I think that I have the rc3 installed on both windows et osx... so it's more like from RC3 to release.

Indeed. I meant that I was going from RC1 to release. :-)

You know? You know what's better than Java or DotNet as a platform? Your own Linux distro the way you like it. :-)

Well, I think you're way offtopic here. And you make a second mistake by comparing 2 development platforms with an OS. By the way, your fonts in Firefox really look bad but I can't blame you on that one, because it always sucked in X (more with Gnome, less with KDE). I think it's time to correct the issue. I can't believe that most distros turn off the bytecoder interpreter (who care if Apple copyrighted it? ) and end up using some weird ugly fonts. At least it's possible with KDE to rip-off Windows fonts and make them look exactly like they do under Windows. But with Gnome, they font config thing is so stupid that it won't let you do that. The problem? I like Gnome better but I can't get shit to work like with KDE. The solution? Windows. Thanks Bill for saving my time.

Oh... before some haters start telling that I'm an idiot and it's possible to do all that shit WITHOUT too much hassle, I must tell you guys that I wasted so much time already writing font.conf scripts that worked good sometimes but never really good with Firefox. It's such a pain in the ass to get Gnome+Firefox look good (I'm still talking about fonts). You get your fonts look not too bad in Gnome but they still look ugly or way too small in Firefox. You make it ok in Firefox, well now you have to fix Gnome. I think the only way to get it "ok" on both at the same time is too use some weird way too much anti-aliased fonts (what most distros do). But it's not right. Sorry but I don't want my OS to make me blind ;-)

I admire you for your passion. But the problem is the false "pixel based control" of the Web. I really don't want care if my fonts look the same on Linux and on Windows and on the Web, as long as they are good enough. Fortunately, I lack graphics skills so I'm not always trying to improve things graphically.

For example, some people still demonstrate interest in using Tables instead of CSS, and I am with them, if it works.

Maybe open source will be able to produce some usable Web components so we can reuse them without the need to tweak them so much.

My fonts look perfect in Firefox, and so they do generally in Gnome (Gentoo 2005.1-r1) - without the artifacts from FireFox on Windows.

It's so easy making fonts look good in Gnome and Firefox. Just remember to use the patented BCI in FreeType. And use "best shapes" as anti-aliazing.

Beats the crap out of ClearType, no matter the monitor (using LCD at school, and CRT at home. ClearType on both in XP/Win2K3 - FreeType in Linux).

ClearType generally renders fonts in a poor way, from a technical point of view. No matter how much you tweak it.

Kudos! The other option of blazing your own trail. Truly what oss is all about...

Nope, seen that. Tried norway`s mirror, not there yet.
But primary mirrors are updated

They're the same.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169676&cid=14141773

Presumably you're either joking, or you're not a web designer. Tables are clunky and awful to work with, and CSS is elegant and easy. Using tables is just a stupid design decision when CSS is available (W3C recommendations to use CSS over tables aside).

Spending a bit of time to fix up rendering problems in IE is worth the added design simplicity and extensibility, and the remarkable difference that CSS makes to maintainability over tables. The fact that CSS is broken "to some degree" in all browsers is really not very important when that "degree" is very marginal. I have come across very few CSS problems across browsers (except, obviously, for IE).

Also, where is this marketing propaganda in favor of CSS that you speak of? The only CSS advocacy I've seen has been by people who design websites professionally. You don't sound like you know what you're talking about, so perhaps you should be more careful about implying that other people aren't using their heads.

Lay off him, it's pretty obvious that he's in favour of CSS, you'd either have to be (as you stated) not a web designer or one of my girlfriend's professors at Sydney Uni to prefer tables.

Seriously. If you see any Aussie sites using tables, chances are the designer studied at USyd within the last two or three years. But I digress.

I'm about to upgrade my Firefox on OS X. Lettuce cross fingers.

My website is handcoded in Gedit, actually. Check it out; it works pretty well in IE, Firefox, and Opera.

http://bnonn.ath.cx/

Sadly there are still cases where tables simply work better for layout than CSS. Until it's possible to make robust, portable, reliable, liquid layouts in CSS without resorting to all sorts of evil hackery, tables will still see usage regardless of what's recommended by the W3C (and I'm a big supporter of the W3C in most things -- heck, I even try and work proper RDF metadata into most of the professional sites I work on, and I do personally try to avoid the use of tables, but realistically you can't expect everyone to drop them until the alternative is solid).

Ditto here.

I think that firefox look has been improved in windows to match the windows theme (I don't remember the bug number)

i think this build has moved to the flat 2003server look, instead of the 3d win2000 look.

The new look is supposed to be more compatible with the Windows XP desktop theme. Unfortunately it no longer matches the standard theme for pre-XP desktops. Argh.

You can fix it by installing this extension:
http://ilpolipo.free.fr/fx/classicmenus/

The problem is documented in this mozilla bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303806

I thought that Windows2K and XP only had their own looks because they took control of parts of applications' appearances. I wonder why Firefox implements a menu style, rather than leaving it to the OS. Is it necessary for Firefox to determine the menu appearance?

it is optimized for windows xp.

If you want somethibng that passes the Acid2 test try the new konqueror in KDE 3.5. It is supposed to be the second browser (after Safari) that passes this test.

I would have been nice, if Firefox had passed too, but it is still doing CSS much better than some other frequently used browsers in the market. As Safari and konqueror not have very large market share most web developers will make sure their pages works resonably well in most browsers.

If I had to chose between passing Acid2 and things like zooming in SVG images, XForms support available in the default installaion I would chose the latter. Especially XForms. It would be very useful in things like intranets where a more application like experience is needed from the web. If you havn't checked it out you can download the plugin at
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/

uh? google is till default here

"I can wait for memory tweaks"

You'll be waiting some time! They've been promising to sort out the obscene memory leaks for some time (just like they've been promising to speed up GTK or OpenOffice.org startup!) but it never happens.

I love open source stuff, but it's increasingly clear that performance and tight code is not a focus. Hey ho...

"I can wait for memory tweaks"

You'll be waiting some time! They've been promising to sort out the obscene memory leaks for some time (just like they've been promising to speed up GTK or OpenOffice.org startup!) but it never happens.

I love open source stuff, but it's increasingly clear that performance and tight code is not a focus. Hey ho...


















Could'nt agree more with that statement

Actually, I've found Firefox 1.5 to be much tighter than 1.0.7 on Windows. Are you setting browser.cache.memory.capacity in about:config? This setting didn't do anything for me on 1.0.7/Win32, but it's definitely doing the job with 1.5.

a friend of mine swears to tables as a layout tool. in combo with php and maybe a bit of inline css (not sure) and he can pull of some nice, functional designs...

What does php have to do with tables or css, one being the server side technology and the other being client side? Would it make a difference if the same HTML was generated using ASP instead of php?

Websites that use tables for layout are a pain to maintain for web designers because of junks need to look better. In term of bandwith, tables are bandwith eater especially for people who still use narrowend connection (who is still the majority in the world). The new style is to use css for webapge with is more elegant and clean.
Tables should be only used for listed datas.

Just using CSS to do form design and some kind of layout is a pita really.

Sort of. Ever try to make a three column layout in CSS that flows properly like table columns and works well in all browsers. You will find it takes several hacks to get it right and it is not that intuitive.

Yes, I have done it many times.

he CSS standard never quite duplicated this use of tables for layouts correctly and the latest version of CSS now has a 'column' tag recommendation which browsers con't recognize yet.

I disagree. CSS duplicated it and in a much more flexible way. The problem is not CSS but the poor implementation of it in Internet Explorer. In all other highly standards compliant browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror). CSS does three column layouts extremely well. Do not blame CSS for Internet Explorer's failings.

The 'column' tag is for something entirely differt. It breaks up text into columns like in magazines an newspapers.

The 'column' tag is for something entirely differt. It breaks up text into columns like in magazines an newspapers.

No, it is not that different. It is just a DIV with the ability to set a reference to another div to control text flox. This html element should have been in the very first CSS spec. This is what designers were asking for but the engineers developing the spec. just didn't get it. I think the funny thing about the css/table issue is that most people combine the two now so you can use css to position a table into place and the table is easy to just fill with data and let it expand naturally.

I have one css issue you cannot defend against with css mutiple column layouts: if the pag width is too small the css columns will usually overlap each other, unlike a table which will only shrink as far as the text width.

I have one css issue you cannot defend against with css mutiple column layouts: if the pag width is too small the css columns will usually overlap each other, unlike a table which will only shrink as far as the text width.

Sure I can. This is what the CSS min-width attribute is for. Again, a shortcoming in Internet Explorer for not implementing it, not a shortcoming in CSS which has it.

"make it an option, please."

In about:config, set
browser.preferences.animateFadeIn
to false. That should do it for you.

"Much of the praised new features in Firefox 1.5 are just copied from Opera."

Indeed! Without Opera, no one would have ever thought of moving tabs around, or that marginally improving back-button speed was a good thing! Seriously though, the main improvements to FF 1.5 are under the hood. We won't be seeing major, killer features until FF 2 or perhaps 3.

RC3 was released on Nov 18th, the week in between was spent on testing and localization. Firefox 1.5 could be the same with RC3 if they didn't find a serious bug in RC3, don't be surprised if you will see the same Gecko version.

What..... Trying to get people to read your article are we???? too funny...

nah, that's probably just all those evil flash ads, just install Adblock.

Have you tried:
http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/

Try this one, from the Wikipedia article about SVG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Svg.svg

Renders fine here (1.5 RC3/Final, WinXP)

That worked great!

Thanks!

Just installed 1.5 in Windows XP, it uninstalled 1.0.7, and Flash 8 plugin (already installed) is working fine.

What platform are you using?

also check your extensions. the latest flash doesn't work with adblocking extensions.

Awesome, thank you very much. This was the issue and uninstalling it fixed the problem.

I was wondering what was going on. Because all of my systems (Linux and windows boxes) had that extension installed and it seemed like a Firefox bug.

Once again, thank you very much .

If you are using the Adblock extension, you could try allowing "Obj-Tabs" in the Adblock Options menu.
Worked for me.

What is this memory leak?, can you prove firefox consumes loads of memory?

Heh, I kinda like it at the top, because I have my status bar hidden

If you installed over a previous setting it appears that this setting is not updated.

open a new window in firefox

type
about:config


Scroll down to the preference
xpinstall.enabled
Double click it to toggle it to true

-BeDammit

The solution of BeDammit worked for me!
Thanks BeDammit.