To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Actually there are several people working at Mozilla and even more working on Firefox.
If you look at the changelog you will realize that this feature is one among tons of other features, including bug fixing, accessibility improvements, standard compliance, performance improvements and a ton of other non-sexy changes.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=FIXED,VERIFIED&c...
This feature is osnews worthy because it is visual and everybody like sexy interfaces.
Can I assume that was a indirect reference to the little flamewar related to the new bullshit stance on 915?
Or as I call it (and said on bugzilla) "How about before you start implementing specifications that aren't even out of draft you finish off specifications that have been recommendations for over a decade?"
Welcome to the reality of open source -- if it's not flashy or trendy, and a coder can't toot their own horn over it, and it's not quite big enough for people to give money to set a bounty on it, don't plan on it EVER being fixed.
Which of course is how TWELVE YEAR OLD entries like bugzilla 915 are shuffled around with half assed status changes, until we get the current "Who gives a ****" status of "irrelevant"
So not only is firefux the same fat slow unstable pig it's always been, they've now pretty much said they could give a shit about the existing finalized standards and instead only care about specs not even out of draft... in other words crap like CSS3 and HTML5 which nobody has ANY ***** BUSINESS USING ON PRODUCTION WEBSITES.
After all, that's what DRAFT means! I swear, it's IE 5 all over again.
Edited 2010-08-26 03:14 UTC
Some bugs are expensive to fix with regards to time, with little obvious gains. How should they balance developer time between that and implementing HTML5?
Some CSS features are behind (like overflow: ellipsis), but I understand their rational in bug comments…
Did anyone using Chrome bitch this much about missing MathML support before it appeared? No… I think you’re being rather harsh on Mozilla. They’ve got people playing in the interface as well as all the developers they had previously working on Gecko.
As DeathShadow said above, in open source nobody wants to do the grunt work. There’s a reason why IE has the only full implementation of CSS 2.1, they paid their developers to the do it. A broken implementation is worthless and negatively effects everybody—100% complete, or not at all. Microsoft saw the importance of getting CSS2.1 done-and-dusted before working on HTML5. How am I supposed to have faith in Mozilla to implement HTML5 when they can’t even finish a ten year old job?
I can’t count the number of websites where #915 would have made a *big* difference to me, but Mozilla call it irrelevant because it’s old and unused *BECAUSE THEY MADE IT RARE AND UNUSED BY NOT IMPLEMENTING IT*. A self-fulfilling arsehole weasel get out—don’t implement something so developers can’t demonstrate practical uses, and then claim the feature isn’t needed anyway anymore and nobody will miss it.





Member since:
2005-11-10
How about they fix those 10 year old CSS bugs instead of piling in more bloat and bling.
Mozilla have lost the plot. The Firefox brand has become more important to them than actual users.