Comments on: Firefox 2 Beta 1: Live Today http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jessica’s Blog » Blog Archive » Firefox 2 Beta 1: Live Today http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-9561 Jessica’s Blog » Blog Archive » Firefox 2 Beta 1: Live Today Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:15:40 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-9561 [...] Firefox 2 Beta 1: Live Today [...] [...] Firefox 2 Beta 1: Live Today [...]

]]>
By: Kieran http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-9126 Kieran Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:46:10 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-9126 Good question Gary. For those of you who don't know, the web standards organization (www.webstandards.org) has an acid 2 test that grades a browser's ability to render the most complicated CSS code. To answer your question Gary, it does not pass the Acid 2 test. The test will remain extremely difficult (if not impossible) for Firefox to pass until they upgrade or move beyond the Gecko engine. It's easier to introduce a form spell checker... I didn't download Explorer 7.0, but I'm sincerely doubting it can render the drawing. The Trident engine is absolutely appalling. Kieran Good question Gary.

For those of you who don’t know, the web standards organization (www.webstandards.org) has an acid 2 test that grades a browser’s ability to render the most complicated CSS code.

To answer your question Gary, it does not pass the Acid 2 test.

The test will remain extremely difficult (if not impossible) for Firefox to pass until they upgrade or move beyond the Gecko engine. It’s easier to introduce a form spell checker…

I didn’t download Explorer 7.0, but I’m sincerely doubting it can render the drawing. The Trident engine is absolutely appalling.

Kieran

]]>
By: Gary http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2768 Gary Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:57:08 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2768 But does it pass the Acid test? But does it pass the Acid test?

]]>
By: Christoph Schiessl http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2599 Christoph Schiessl Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:20:18 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2599 ... the page rendering in the new version is much faster now (Mac OS Tiger). You notice while scrolling down a page! Are already using Cairo (http://cairographics.org/) for rendering?? … the page rendering in the new version is much faster now (Mac OS Tiger). You notice while scrolling down a page!

Are already using Cairo (http://cairographics.org/) for rendering??

]]>
By: Ivan http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2289 Ivan Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:59:08 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2289 I really like it, great list of new features I'll wait for the final version I really like it, great list of new features I’ll wait for the final version

]]>
By: iMod » Firefox 2 Beta 1 Released! http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2285 iMod » Firefox 2 Beta 1 Released! Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:05:46 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2285 [...] As anxious as we all may be for Firefox 2, we still have to wait for the final version, but in the mean time we can settle for what we have and that is Beta 1. Yes, not only but a few days ago Firefox 2 Beta 1 was released. Here are some major changes in the new development: [...] [...] As anxious as we all may be for Firefox 2, we still have to wait for the final version, but in the mean time we can settle for what we have and that is Beta 1. Yes, not only but a few days ago Firefox 2 Beta 1 was released. Here are some major changes in the new development: [...]

]]>
By: lectrice http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2274 lectrice Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:48:08 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2274 "(writing on it right now actually). The spell checking is convieniant" -- but maybe not terribly effective? Sorry, couldn't resist. “(writing on it right now actually). The spell checking is convieniant”

– but maybe not terribly effective? Sorry, couldn’t resist.

]]>
By: Jonathan Snook http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2264 Jonathan Snook Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:13:04 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2264 Jeff: Yes, URL's can actually have @ symbols in them. Here's an example for providing some basic authentication credentials: http://username:password@example.com/ Jeff: Yes, URL’s can actually have @ symbols in them. Here’s an example for providing some basic authentication credentials:

http://username:password@example.com/

]]>
By: Jeff Scism http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2262 Jeff Scism Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:29:33 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2262 I would like to "find" someplace where I can suggest that the Standards for rendering URL execution in the Browser treats all URLs that contain an @ symbol as a Email link, vs. a URL. I am constantly running across misformed email links which leave out the "mailto: portion, and get rendered as URLs. Logic tells me that if a URL 'reads' with the @ symbol in it, that there should be a way to trigger it as a email link vs. a URL website address? By default in the browser programming? (It would default and detect when the"mailto:" portion of the link is left out if the @ symbol is present.) This of course assumes the the @ symbol is not used in any actual URL address anywhere I would like to “find” someplace where I can suggest that the Standards for rendering URL execution in the Browser treats all URLs that contain an @ symbol as a Email link, vs. a URL.

I am constantly running across misformed email links which leave out the “mailto: portion, and get rendered as URLs.

Logic tells me that if a URL ‘reads’ with the @ symbol in it, that there should be a way to trigger it as a email link vs. a URL website address? By default in the browser programming?

(It would default and detect when the”mailto:” portion of the link is left out if the @ symbol is present.)

This of course assumes the the @ symbol is not used in any actual URL address anywhere

]]>
By: Steve Tucker http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/comment-page-1/#comment-2202 Steve Tucker Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:46:39 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/07/12/firefox-2-beta-1-live-today/#comment-2202 Support for Javascript 1.7 should definitely be interesting. I was also rather impressed with the form spellchecking feature - nice touch of innovation! Support for Javascript 1.7 should definitely be interesting. I was also rather impressed with the form spellchecking feature – nice touch of innovation!

]]>