Resizing

I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.  How 
do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
0
Robin
1/11/2006 8:37:55 PM
mozilla.support.firefox 24201 articles. 7 followers. Post Follow

42 Replies
577 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 10

Robin Garfinkel wrote:
> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.  How 
> do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?

It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open the 
normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme. Next, if you 
still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and right click on an 
extension and choose "disable" ...see if that fixes the problem ..if 
not...do the same with any other extensions until you find the culprit.

-- 
Brian

.. http://www.mozilla.org

.. http://ilias.ca/mozilla/

.. http://ilias.ca/

..  No keyboard found. Press F1 to continue.
0
Brian
1/11/2006 8:48:26 PM
Brian J. Graham wrote:
> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
> 
>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.  
>> How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
> 
> 
> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open the 
> normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme. Next, if you 
> still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and right click on an 
> extension and choose "disable" ...see if that fixes the problem ..if 
> not...do the same with any other extensions until you find the culprit.
> 
Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When disabled 
I have no problem.
0
Robin
1/11/2006 8:55:02 PM
Robin Garfinkel wrote:
> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>
>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.  
>>> How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
>>
>>
>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open the 
>> normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme. Next, if 
>> you still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and right click 
>> on an extension and choose "disable" ...see if that fixes the problem 
>> ..if not...do the same with any other extensions until you find the 
>> culprit.
>>
> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When disabled 
> I have no problem.

Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the Plus 
version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)

-- 
Brian

.. http://www.mozilla.org

.. http://ilias.ca/mozilla/

.. http://ilias.ca/

..  No keyboard found. Press F1 to continue.
0
Brian
1/11/2006 8:57:46 PM
Brian J. Graham wrote:
> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.
>>>> How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open
>>> the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme.
>>> Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and
>>> right click on an extension and choose "disable" ...see if that
>>> fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with any other extensions
>>> until you find the culprit.
>>>
>> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>> disabled I have no problem.
>
> Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
> Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)

Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock (version 
0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete 


0
Pete
1/11/2006 9:16:58 PM
On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
> Brian J. Graham wrote:
> 
>>Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>
>>>Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.
>>>>>How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open
>>>>the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme.
>>>>Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and
>>>>right click on an extension and choose "disable" ...see if that
>>>>fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with any other extensions
>>>>until you find the culprit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>>>disabled I have no problem.
>>
>>Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
>>Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)
> 
> 
> Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock (version 
> 0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete 
> 

No problem here with FF 1.5 and Adblock Plus 0.5.11.1

Robin, do you have the latest version of Adblock Plus installed?

-- 
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
0
Herb
1/11/2006 9:52:27 PM
On 01/11/06 16:52, Herb wrote:
> On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.
>>>>>> How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open
>>>>> the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme.
>>>>> Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and
>>>>> right click on an extension and choose "disable" ...see if that
>>>>> fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with any other extensions
>>>>> until you find the culprit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>>>> disabled I have no problem.
>>>
>>> Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
>>> Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)
>>
>>
>> Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock 
>> (version 0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete
> 
> No problem here with FF 1.5 and Adblock Plus 0.5.11.1
> 
> Robin, do you have the latest version of Adblock Plus installed?

0.5.11.2's out now. ;-P

<URL:http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=266291>
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/11/2006 9:59:58 PM
On 11.01.2006 21:59 UK Time, Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/11/06 16:52, Herb wrote:
> 
>> On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
>>
>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.
>>>>>>> How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open
>>>>>> the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme.
>>>>>> Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and
>>>>>> right click on an extension and choose "disable" ...see if that
>>>>>> fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with any other extensions
>>>>>> until you find the culprit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>>>>> disabled I have no problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
>>>> Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock 
>>> (version 0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete
>>
>>
>> No problem here with FF 1.5 and Adblock Plus 0.5.11.1
>>
>> Robin, do you have the latest version of Adblock Plus installed?
> 
> 
> 0.5.11.2's out now. ;-P
> 
> <URL:http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=266291>

I checked via Tools > Extensions > Find Updates in FF 1.5 before I 
posted my message, and it doesn't find it :-(

-- 
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
0
Herb
1/11/2006 10:08:31 PM
On 01/11/06 17:08, Herb wrote:
> On 11.01.2006 21:59 UK Time, Matt Nordhoff wrote:
>> On 01/11/06 16:52, Herb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the way.
>>>>>>>> How do I go about finding out which setting is causing the problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF open
>>>>>>> the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default theme.
>>>>>>> Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools > Extensions and
>>>>>>> right click on an extension and choose "disable" ...see if that
>>>>>>> fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with any other extensions
>>>>>>> until you find the culprit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>>>>>> disabled I have no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
>>>>> Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock 
>>>> (version 0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete
>>>
>>>
>>> No problem here with FF 1.5 and Adblock Plus 0.5.11.1
>>>
>>> Robin, do you have the latest version of Adblock Plus installed?
>>
>>
>> 0.5.11.2's out now. ;-P
>>
>> <URL:http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=266291>
> 
> I checked via Tools > Extensions > Find Updates in FF 1.5 before I 
> posted my message, and it doesn't find it :-(

I manually update all of my extensions. I trust the automatic updater 
for Firefox, but not extensions. Not all of them have the updaters 
configured, not all of them have them up-to-date....
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/11/2006 10:15:59 PM
Herb wrote:
> On 11.01.2006 21:59 UK Time, Matt Nordhoff wrote:
>> On 01/11/06 16:52, Herb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the
>>>>>>>> way. How do I go about finding out which setting is causing
>>>>>>>> the problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF
>>>>>>> open the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default
>>>>>>> theme. Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools >
>>>>>>> Extensions and right click on an extension and choose "disable"
>>>>>>> ...see if that fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with
>>>>>>> any other extensions until you find the culprit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>>>>>> disabled I have no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
>>>>> Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock
>>>> (version 0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete
>>>
>>>
>>> No problem here with FF 1.5 and Adblock Plus 0.5.11.1
>>>
>>> Robin, do you have the latest version of Adblock Plus installed?
>>
>>
>> 0.5.11.2's out now. ;-P
>>
>> <URL:http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=266291>
>
> I checked via Tools > Extensions > Find Updates in FF 1.5 before I
> posted my message, and it doesn't find it :-(

Herb...that doesn't surprise me.  Let me ask you what is the basic advantage 
of adblock plus over the non-plus...Pete 


0
Pete
1/11/2006 10:19:09 PM
On 01/11/06 17:19, Pete wrote:
> Herb wrote:
>> On 11.01.2006 21:59 UK Time, Matt Nordhoff wrote:
>>> On 01/11/06 16:52, Herb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just tried opening Firefox in safe mode and it opens all the
>>>>>>>>> way. How do I go about finding out which setting is causing
>>>>>>>>> the problem?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is most likely an incompatible theme or extension. With FF
>>>>>>>> open the normal way go to Tools > Themes and use the default
>>>>>>>> theme. Next, if you still have the problem, go to Tools >
>>>>>>>> Extensions and right click on an extension and choose "disable"
>>>>>>>> ...see if that fixes the problem ..if not...do the same with
>>>>>>>> any other extensions until you find the culprit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.  The culprit was Adblock Plus or its updater.  When
>>>>>>> disabled I have no problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great! Glad everything is working again. I use AdBlock but not the
>>>>>> Plus version ....no similar problem with plain AdBlock. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you found the culprit Robin.  I also use the regular adblock
>>>>> (version 0.5.2.039), and FF 1.5 works fine with it...Pete
>>>>
>>>> No problem here with FF 1.5 and Adblock Plus 0.5.11.1
>>>>
>>>> Robin, do you have the latest version of Adblock Plus installed?
>>>
>>> 0.5.11.2's out now. ;-P
>>>
>>> <URL:http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=266291>
>> I checked via Tools > Extensions > Find Updates in FF 1.5 before I
>> posted my message, and it doesn't find it :-(
> 
> Herb...that doesn't surprise me.  Let me ask you what is the basic advantage 
> of adblock plus over the non-plus...Pete 

Better performance. Fewer bugs. Regular expression filters. Site 
white-/blacklisting.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/11/2006 10:25:12 PM
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/11/06 17:08, Herb wrote:
>> On 11.01.2006 21:59 UK Time, Matt Nordhoff wrote:
>>> On 01/11/06 16:52, Herb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11.01.2006 21:16 UK Time, Pete wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian J. Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Robin Garfinkel wrote:

/snip?
> 
> I manually update all of my extensions. I trust the automatic updater 
> for Firefox, but not extensions. Not all of them have the updaters 
> configured, not all of them have them up-to-date....

I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the extensions 
it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/12/2006 12:57:20 AM
Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote in
<news:7LCdnbsZhqTuNFjeRVn-sw@mozilla.org>:

> Matt Nordhoff wrote:

> /snip?

I dunno, didja?  ;)

>> I manually update all of my extensions. I trust the automatic
>> updater for Firefox, but not extensions. Not all of them have the
>> updaters configured, not all of them have them up-to-date....
>
> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the
> extensions it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.

IME also the extension updater works fine.  I always back up my profile
before updating, but that's to guard against extension problems, not
updater problems.

Another (very minor) issue is that AMO now requires that extensions
listed there check with AMO for updates rather than with the extension
author's webspace.  Depending on how much the AMO approval queue is
backed up, this can cause delays in getting the latest versions.

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/12/2006 1:36:52 AM
�Q� wrote:
> Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote in
> <news:7LCdnbsZhqTuNFjeRVn-sw@mozilla.org>:
> 
>> Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> 
/snip/


> 
> IME also the extension updater works fine.  I always back up my profile
> before updating, but that's to guard against extension problems, not
> updater problems.
> 
> Another (very minor) issue is that AMO now requires that extensions
> listed there check with AMO for updates rather than with the extension
> author's webspace.  Depending on how much the AMO approval queue is
> backed up, this can cause delays in getting the latest versions.
> 

Its a fail safe, i think, for newer, less sophisticated users.  I allows 
a testing period for the new version, to make sure it really works.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I believe thats the thinking.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/12/2006 3:08:27 AM
On 12.01.2006 00:57 UK Time, Leonidas Jones wrote:

>> I manually update all of my extensions. I trust the automatic updater 
>> for Firefox, but not extensions. Not all of them have the updaters 
>> configured, not all of them have them up-to-date....
> 
> 
> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the extensions 
> it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.

How do you know which ones it finds and which ones you have to update 
manually?

-- 
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
0
Herb
1/12/2006 3:57:08 AM
Herb wrote:
> On 12.01.2006 00:57 UK Time, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>>> I manually update all of my extensions. I trust the automatic updater 
>>> for Firefox, but not extensions. Not all of them have the updaters 
>>> configured, not all of them have them up-to-date....
>>
>>
>> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the 
>> extensions it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.
> 
> How do you know which ones it finds and which ones you have to update 
> manually?
> 

Well, the ones it finds, it updates.  The others, you need to search.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/12/2006 4:30:26 AM
On 12.01.2006 04:30 UK Time, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Herb wrote:
> 
>> On 12.01.2006 00:57 UK Time, Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>
>>>> I manually update all of my extensions. I trust the automatic 
>>>> updater for Firefox, but not extensions. Not all of them have the 
>>>> updaters configured, not all of them have them up-to-date....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the 
>>> extensions it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.
>>
>>
>> How do you know which ones it finds and which ones you have to update 
>> manually?
>>
> 
> Well, the ones it finds, it updates.  The others, you need to search.

But for those it doesn't update automatically, how do you know whether 
it's because it doesn't find them or because they are up to date???

-- 
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
0
Herb
1/12/2006 5:07:27 AM
Herb <HE@UK> wrote in <news:G-idnU7QMuaSeVjeRVn-hg@mozilla.org>:

[about automatic extension updating]
> But for those it doesn't update automatically, how do you know
> whether it's because it doesn't find them or because they are up
> to date???

AFAICT, there's no way to know.  I just tried updating an extension
whose homepage is no longer on the net;  when Firefox tries to look for
an update, it doesn't find anything on the 'net about it.  All I got
was the standard "No updates were found . . . ." message.

There are three feeds I know of that can help keep up with latest
versions.

AMO (RSS 2.0)
<http://update.mozilla.org/rss/?application=firefox&type=E&list=newest>

The Extensions Mirror (RSS 2.0)
<http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?act=rssout&id=2>

Geckozone (French, RSS 1.0)
<http://extensions.geckozone.org/RSS>

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/12/2006 6:27:46 AM
On 12.01.2006 06:27 UK Time, �Q� wrote:
> Herb <HE@UK> wrote in <news:G-idnU7QMuaSeVjeRVn-hg@mozilla.org>:
> 
> [about automatic extension updating]
> 
>>But for those it doesn't update automatically, how do you know
>>whether it's because it doesn't find them or because they are up
>>to date???
> 
> 
> AFAICT, there's no way to know.  I just tried updating an extension
> whose homepage is no longer on the net;  when Firefox tries to look for
> an update, it doesn't find anything on the 'net about it.  All I got
> was the standard "No updates were found . . . ." message.
> 
> There are three feeds I know of that can help keep up with latest
> versions.
> 
> AMO (RSS 2.0)
> <http://update.mozilla.org/rss/?application=firefox&type=E&list=newest>
> 
> The Extensions Mirror (RSS 2.0)
> <http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?act=rssout&id=2>
> 
> Geckozone (French, RSS 1.0)
> <http://extensions.geckozone.org/RSS>
> 

Thanks - it would be useful if the FF extension updater made an 
appropriate distinction, wouldn't it?

-- 
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
0
Herb
1/12/2006 6:32:43 AM
Herb wrote:
> On 12.01.2006 06:27 UK Time, �Q� wrote:
>> Herb <HE@UK> wrote in <news:G-idnU7QMuaSeVjeRVn-hg@mozilla.org>:
>>
>> [about automatic extension updating]
>>
>>> But for those it doesn't update automatically, how do you know
>>> whether it's because it doesn't find them or because they are up
>>> to date???
>>
>>
>> AFAICT, there's no way to know.  I just tried updating an extension
>> whose homepage is no longer on the net;  when Firefox tries to look for
>> an update, it doesn't find anything on the 'net about it.  All I got
>> was the standard "No updates were found . . . ." message.
>>
>> There are three feeds I know of that can help keep up with latest
>> versions.
>>
>> AMO (RSS 2.0)
>> <http://update.mozilla.org/rss/?application=firefox&type=E&list=newest>
>>
>> The Extensions Mirror (RSS 2.0)
>> <http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?act=rssout&id=2>
>>
>> Geckozone (French, RSS 1.0)
>> <http://extensions.geckozone.org/RSS>
>>
> 
> Thanks - it would be useful if the FF extension updater made an 
> appropriate distinction, wouldn't it?
> 

Well, I suppose it does, by updating or not updating. Obviously it could 
be better.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/12/2006 6:41:43 AM
On 12.01.2006 06:41 UK Time, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Herb wrote:
> 
>> On 12.01.2006 06:27 UK Time, �Q� wrote:
>>
>>> Herb <HE@UK> wrote in <news:G-idnU7QMuaSeVjeRVn-hg@mozilla.org>:
>>>
>>> [about automatic extension updating]
>>>
>>>> But for those it doesn't update automatically, how do you know
>>>> whether it's because it doesn't find them or because they are up
>>>> to date???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAICT, there's no way to know.  I just tried updating an extension
>>> whose homepage is no longer on the net;  when Firefox tries to look for
>>> an update, it doesn't find anything on the 'net about it.  All I got
>>> was the standard "No updates were found . . . ." message.
>>>
>>> There are three feeds I know of that can help keep up with latest
>>> versions.
>>>
>>> AMO (RSS 2.0)
>>> <http://update.mozilla.org/rss/?application=firefox&type=E&list=newest>
>>>
>>> The Extensions Mirror (RSS 2.0)
>>> <http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?act=rssout&id=2>
>>>
>>> Geckozone (French, RSS 1.0)
>>> <http://extensions.geckozone.org/RSS>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks - it would be useful if the FF extension updater made an 
>> appropriate distinction, wouldn't it?
>>
> 
> Well, I suppose it does, by updating or not updating. Obviously it could 
> be better.

But the point is (as confirmed by �Q�) that the user has no easy way of 
knowing whether FF doesn't update an extension because it is up to date, 
or because FF is unable to find an update (despite the fact that an 
update is available) :-(

-- 
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
0
Herb
1/12/2006 6:49:44 AM
Herb wrote:

> On 12.01.2006 06:41 UK Time, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 12.01.2006 06:27 UK Time, �Q� wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Herb <HE@UK> wrote in <news:G-idnU7QMuaSeVjeRVn-hg@mozilla.org>:
>>>>
>>>>[about automatic extension updating]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But for those it doesn't update automatically, how do you know
>>>>>whether it's because it doesn't find them or because they are up
>>>>>to date???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AFAICT, there's no way to know.  I just tried updating an extension
>>>>whose homepage is no longer on the net;  when Firefox tries to look for
>>>>an update, it doesn't find anything on the 'net about it.  All I got
>>>>was the standard "No updates were found . . . ." message.
>>>>
>>>>There are three feeds I know of that can help keep up with latest
>>>>versions.
>>>>
>>>>AMO (RSS 2.0)
>>>><http://update.mozilla.org/rss/?application=firefox&type=E&list=newest>
>>>>
>>>>The Extensions Mirror (RSS 2.0)
>>>><http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?act=rssout&id=2>
>>>>
>>>>Geckozone (French, RSS 1.0)
>>>><http://extensions.geckozone.org/RSS>
>>>>
>>>Thanks - it would be useful if the FF extension updater made an 
>>>appropriate distinction, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>
>>Well, I suppose it does, by updating or not updating. Obviously it could 
>>be better.
> 
> 
> But the point is (as confirmed by �Q�) that the user has no easy way of 
> knowing whether FF doesn't update an extension because it is up to date, 
> or because FF is unable to find an update (despite the fact that an 
> update is available) :-(
> 
My question is where does the Updater look for an update?  Does it 
look for updates through the net, or does it only look for them on 
https://pfs.mozilla.org/plugins/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/
0
gwtc
1/12/2006 7:35:57 AM
gwtc <TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>
wrote in <news:F_qdnX11_tZZmFveRVn-sg@mozilla.org>:

> My question is where does the Updater look for an update?  Does it
> look for updates through the net, or does it only look for them on
> https://pfs.mozilla.org/plugins/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/

If there's an update URL specified in the extension's install.rdf file,
that location is checked.  E.g., and old copy of the AdBlock extension
has this line in its install.rdf:

<em:updateURL>http://adblock.mozdev.org/update.rdf</em:updateURL>

If no updateURL is specified by the extension, update.mozilla.org is
checked.  AMO no longer allows submitted extensions to use their own
update URLs, so once a user installs something from AMO, any future
automatic updates will have also gone through their QA review.

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/12/2006 9:01:49 AM
On 01/11/06 19:57, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the extensions 
> it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.
> 
> Lee

I do not trust that if I just used the extension updater, I would have 
the most up-to-date versions of all my extensions as quickly as if I 
manually checked myself. There.

Also, there still can be problems if you install a new version over an 
old one, as the updater does, instead of first uninstalling the old version.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/12/2006 1:30:37 PM
�Q� wrote:

> gwtc <TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>
> wrote in <news:F_qdnX11_tZZmFveRVn-sg@mozilla.org>:
> 
> 
>>My question is where does the Updater look for an update?  Does it
>>look for updates through the net, or does it only look for them on
>>https://pfs.mozilla.org/plugins/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/
> 
> 
> If there's an update URL specified in the extension's install.rdf file,
> that location is checked.  E.g., and old copy of the AdBlock extension
> has this line in its install.rdf:
> 
> <em:updateURL>http://adblock.mozdev.org/update.rdf</em:updateURL>
> 
> If no updateURL is specified by the extension, update.mozilla.org is
> checked.  AMO no longer allows submitted extensions to use their own
> update URLs, so once a user installs something from AMO, any future
> automatic updates will have also gone through their QA review.
> 
gotcha. Didn't know that.
0
gwtc
1/12/2006 9:45:08 PM
On 01/12/06 04:01, »Q« wrote:
> If there's an update URL specified in the extension's install.rdf file,
> that location is checked.  E.g., and old copy of the AdBlock extension
> has this line in its install.rdf:
> 
> <em:updateURL>http://adblock.mozdev.org/update.rdf</em:updateURL>
> 
> If no updateURL is specified by the extension, update.mozilla.org is
> checked.  AMO no longer allows submitted extensions to use their own
> update URLs, so once a user installs something from AMO, any future
> automatic updates will have also gone through their QA review.

Does everybody just use "update.rdf", or do you have to for some reason? 
Because I've never seen another filename.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 4:12:32 PM
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/12/06 04:01, »Q« wrote:

/snip/
> 
> Does everybody just use "update.rdf", or do you have to for some reason? 
> Because I've never seen another filename.

If you want the automatic updater to work, you have to.

Lee
-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/13/2006 4:23:40 PM
On 01/13/06 11:23, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> If you want the automatic updater to work, you have to.
> 
> Lee

The filename has to be "update.rdf"?
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 5:07:59 PM
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/13/06 11:23, Leonidas Jones wrote:

>>
>> Lee
> 
> The filename has to be "update.rdf"?

I believe so.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/13/2006 5:19:30 PM
On 01/13/06 12:19, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> I believe so.

Well that's silly. Seems like it would be more effort to check the 
filename than to allow it to be whatever the extension author(s) want(s) 
it to be, for absolutely no benefit, just inconvenience.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 5:22:29 PM
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/13/06 12:19, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>> I believe so.
> 
> 
> Well that's silly. Seems like it would be more effort to check the 
> filename than to allow it to be whatever the extension author(s) want(s) 
> it to be, for absolutely no benefit, just inconvenience.

Its the author extension who made it that way! He designed the extension 
to work on that file and didnt include an option to change it (and didnt 
include a file checking means either). He wrote the code, it was 
whatever he wanted it to be.

The benefit is that its standard, if there is a problem, then the 
extension author can depend on certain filepaths to be in all systems. 
Adding file checking would be adding complexety to the extension for no 
benefit, as its not high on everyones list for functionality.

So, you cant change it, what of it? Why would you need to change it?
0
Moz
1/13/2006 7:38:24 PM
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/11/06 19:57, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the 
>> extensions it finds.  For others, you do have to update manually.
>>
>> Lee
> 
> 
> I do not trust that if I just used the extension updater, I would have 
> the most up-to-date versions of all my extensions as quickly as if I 
> manually checked myself. There.
> 
> Also, there still can be problems if you install a new version over an 
> old one, as the updater does, instead of first uninstalling the old 
> version.

Well, you can do it manually if you wish. The automatic updater is there 
for the millions of people who dont know how, or dont wish to take the 
time to do it manually. In a 'perfect' world, the automatic updater 
would be as efficient and effective as manually checking, but rarely are 
things 'perfect'. You cna turn off automatic updating if you prefer
0
Moz
1/13/2006 7:41:34 PM
"Moz Champion (Dan)" <moz.champion@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<news:L7OdnTkMgdq8n1XeRVn-jQ@mozilla.org>:

[about the mandatory use of install.rdf in extensions]
>> Well that's silly. Seems like it would be more effort to check
>> the filename than to allow it to be whatever the extension
>> author(s) want(s) it to be, for absolutely no benefit, just
>> inconvenience.
>
> Its the author extension who made it that way! He designed the
> extension to work on that file and didnt include an option to
> change it (and didnt include a file checking means either). He
> wrote the code, it was whatever he wanted it to be.

I'm not sure, but there seems to be some misunderstanding.  It's
Firefox itself that mandates the use of a file called install.rdf.
The documentation calls it "the install manifest", and it's the only
way Fx knows what is included with any given extension.  After
installing an extension, the file isn't used any more, though of
course the information it had contained is stored by Fx in places
like extensions.rdf.

I guess Fx could drop the file naming requirement, but then it would
have to grep through all the files in the XPI package to figure out
which one(s) contained the needed info.  Like Dan, I don't see any
advantages to allowing arbitrary file names in this case.

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/13/2006 9:40:27 PM
"Moz Champion (Dan)" <moz.champion@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<news:HcCdnbNhNIl9n1XenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@mozilla.org>:

> Matt Nordhoff wrote:
>> On 01/11/06 19:57, Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I would rephrase, I trust the updater for extensions, for the
>>> extensions it finds.  For others, you do have to update
>>> manually.
>>
>> I do not trust that if I just used the extension updater, I would
>> have the most up-to-date versions of all my extensions as quickly
>> as if I manually checked myself. There.
>>
>> Also, there still can be problems if you install a new version
>> over an old one, as the updater does, instead of first
>> uninstalling the old version.
>
> Well, you can do it manually if you wish. The automatic updater is
> there for the millions of people who dont know how, or dont wish
> to take the time to do it manually. In a 'perfect' world, the
> automatic updater would be as efficient and effective as manually
> checking, but rarely are things 'perfect'. You cna turn off
> automatic updating if you prefer

I agree with that completely.

And I believe the Fx developers have tried hard to get us closer to
that perfect world.  AIUI, the improvements that were made to the
Extensions Manager between 1.0.x and 1.5 make it much easier for
extension authors to avoid the problems of the past when it comes to
updating.  So, if a current extension is misbehaving WRT updates, the
author needs to fix it.

It might be nice to have a pref setting that allows the user to specify
that /only/ AMO extensions should be automagically updated, which would
mean nothing unvetted could get through without manual updating.

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/13/2006 9:48:30 PM
On 01/13/06 14:38, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
> Its the author extension who made it that way! He designed the extension 
> to work on that file and didnt include an option to change it (and didnt 
> include a file checking means either). He wrote the code, it was 
> whatever he wanted it to be.
> 
> The benefit is that its standard, if there is a problem, then the 
> extension author can depend on certain filepaths to be in all systems. 
> Adding file checking would be adding complexety to the extension for no 
> benefit, as its not high on everyones list for functionality.
> 
> So, you cant change it, what of it? Why would you need to change it?

What? You misunderstand me. I pointed out that the file for every 
extension updater I've seen is called "update.rdf", and asked if Firefox 
for some reason requires it to be that. Lee said that yeah, it does, and 
I asked why.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 9:53:34 PM
On 01/13/06 14:41, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
> Well, you can do it manually if you wish. The automatic updater is there 
> for the millions of people who dont know how, or dont wish to take the 
> time to do it manually. In a 'perfect' world, the automatic updater 
> would be as efficient and effective as manually checking, but rarely are 
> things 'perfect'. You cna turn off automatic updating if you prefer

It's more efficient, but less effective. In a perfect world, all 
extensions would have update files and extension authors would update 
their update files as soon as they uploaded a new version and there 
would never be any problems if you don't uninstall an old version of an 
extension before installing the new version. But the world isn't perfect.

I have.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 9:56:04 PM
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> On 01/13/06 12:19, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>> I believe so.
> 
> 
> Well that's silly. Seems like it would be more effort to check the 
> filename than to allow it to be whatever the extension author(s) want(s) 
> it to be, for absolutely no benefit, just inconvenience.

Note Q's response later in the thread.

Lee

-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
Learn about the Champs!  http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com   http://mozilla.org
0
Leonidas
1/13/2006 9:56:29 PM
On 01/13/06 16:40, »Q« wrote:
> I'm not sure, but there seems to be some misunderstanding.  It's
> Firefox itself that mandates the use of a file called install.rdf.
> The documentation calls it "the install manifest", and it's the only
> way Fx knows what is included with any given extension.  After
> installing an extension, the file isn't used any more, though of
> course the information it had contained is stored by Fx in places
> like extensions.rdf.
> 
> I guess Fx could drop the file naming requirement, but then it would
> have to grep through all the files in the XPI package to figure out
> which one(s) contained the needed info.  Like Dan, I don't see any
> advantages to allowing arbitrary file names in this case.

You're misunderstanding me, too. I'm referring to update.rdf, the file 
that is used when checking for updates to extensions, and is on some 
website somewhere, and has its URL stored in install.rdf.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 10:00:19 PM
Matt Nordhoff <mnordhoff@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:8PednUCR3t2WvlXeRVn-ow@mozilla.org>:

> You're misunderstanding me, too. I'm referring to update.rdf, the
> file that is used when checking for updates to extensions, and is
> on some website somewhere, and has its URL stored in install.rdf.

Ah, I did misunderstand you, despite the fact that you were very clear
about it.  My apologies to both you and Dan.  (Since I'd already gotten
confused, I also misunderstood some of what he wrote.)

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/13/2006 10:26:09 PM
Matt Nordhoff <mnordhoff@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:r4mdnTZGh6XjTFrenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@mozilla.org>:

> On 01/12/06 04:01, �Q� wrote:
>> If there's an update URL specified in the extension's install.rdf
>> file, that location is checked.  E.g., and old copy of the
>> AdBlock extension has this line in its install.rdf:
>>
>> <em:updateURL>http://adblock.mozdev.org/update.rdf</em:updateURL>
>>
>> If no updateURL is specified by the extension, update.mozilla.org
>> is checked.  AMO no longer allows submitted extensions to use
>> their own update URLs, so once a user installs something from
>> AMO, any future automatic updates will have also gone through
>> their QA review.
>
> Does everybody just use "update.rdf", or do you have to for some
> reason? Because I've never seen another filename.

Sorry again about my confusion downthread.  AFAICT, the only
requirement is that the file, called an "update manifest" be formatted
correctly and be served as MIME type "text/rdf".  IOW, I don't think
the filename matters.

See <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Install_Manifests#updateURL>
for the only info I could dig up on it.  Unfortunately, the link from
there to "Update Manifest" only leads to a page that hasn't been added
yet.  (As an aside, the developer.mozilla.org wiki, while certainly
incomplete, seems to be filling up rapidly with all manner of info.)

-- 
�Q�
0
ISO
1/13/2006 10:41:07 PM
On 01/13/06 17:26, »Q« wrote:
> Ah, I did misunderstand you, despite the fact that you were very clear
> about it.  My apologies to both you and Dan.  (Since I'd already gotten
> confused, I also misunderstood some of what he wrote.)

Hehe. Don't worry about it. :-)

(What exactly /are/ you supposed to say in a situation like this. I 
don't want to sound like I'm being mean in any way, because it's just an 
innocent and harmless mistake, but I dunno if I do.)
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 10:49:28 PM
On 01/13/06 17:49, Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> Hehe. Don't worry about it. :-)
> 
> (What exactly /are/ you supposed to say in a situation like this. I 
> don't want to sound like I'm being mean in any way, because it's just an 
> innocent and harmless mistake, but I dunno if I do.)

"harmless misunderstanding", that is.
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 10:50:56 PM
On 01/13/06 17:41, »Q« wrote:
> Sorry again about my confusion downthread.  AFAICT, the only
> requirement is that the file, called an "update manifest" be formatted
> correctly and be served as MIME type "text/rdf".  IOW, I don't think
> the filename matters.
> 
> See <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Install_Manifests#updateURL>
> for the only info I could dig up on it.  Unfortunately, the link from
> there to "Update Manifest" only leads to a page that hasn't been added
> yet.  (As an aside, the developer.mozilla.org wiki, while certainly
> incomplete, seems to be filling up rapidly with all manner of info.)

Thanks »Q«. :-)

I just found it odd that for every extension that I've noticed the 
update URL for (which isn't a really large number, but...), the filename 
was "update.rdf". It didn't make sense why it would be required to be 
that, but it could be. Thanks for checking. :-)

One of the examples also used "windows.rdf".
-- 
Yay!
0
Matt
1/13/2006 11:52:28 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

resize FileUpload witdht supported by Firefox
hello ....i want to upload some file with my site with FileUpload..but when i changed his widht in firefox...it remain the same...it works fine under IE.how to deal with firefox? thx for help  add size attribute   <asp:FileUpload size="50" ID="FileUpload1" runat="server" />Girijeshhttp://www.girijesh.in/ You can also format using the css class. .filebutton{   font-size: 11px;   font-family: tahoma, sans-serif;   width: 250px;   /* resize here */} <asp:FileUpload ID="FileUpload1&quo...

CollapsiblePanel in Firefox does not resize its width when window is resized
Hello,I have an issue with the CollapsiblePanel in Firefox.If the tragetted Panel is placed in an element/control which´s width is depending on the the current window size (e.g. width:100%), the targetted Panel does not resize if the window is resized.In IE it works, but in Firefox (v1.5.0.6) the Panel is not resized.Has anybody an idea how to solve this? Thanks,Flaxon I have found the problem. It´s in the script of the CollapsiblePanel at line 532 ff (Build 4721)I have marked out the lines causing the issue. However, I don not exactly understand why this lines s...

why not support firefox
Name: Email: michelwongatyahoodotcom Product: Firefox Summary: why not support firefox Comments: Dear Sirs I notice that many China website e.g. http://v.163.com/tvlist/borpage_81.html not support firefox but only IE. The box said : "您现在使用浏览器(如FireFox)无法正常观看,请使用 IE(Internet Explorer)浏览器打开此页面!". This is only 1 example, but there are many more cases like this from China sites. Another 1 is CCTV(http://vod.cctv.com/podcast/index), but after I ungrade to 3.5.3 recently, CCTV China pop-up a small box asking me to plugin, after that I can view it. Please improv...

support/what support
Name: William Johnson Email: william0992atsbcglobaldotnet Product: Firefox Summary: support/what support Comments: your support? department for Firefox issues is nothing but a circular maze of unbelievably confusing information that is of no use for the layman and I would dump this piece of trash if I didn't need it for certain websites. I don't know how to reprogram the many bugs or fix the many websites broken by this thing and its "error console" with no directions as to what to do with it. What is it's purpose if there is no help function for it? ...

Support Firefox
Name: Product: Firefox Summary: Support Firefox Comments: In US, online banks can be accessed by using firefox, which is not the case in China since in China banks usually issue a plug-in which is a pre-requsite and is only compatible with IE. I believe this problem hinders the more poluparization of FIREFOX in China. But in US, this is hardly a problem, I prefer Firefox. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; zh-CN; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.6 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response...

Firefox support
There is a new IPrint client (4.05) on Novell's site. Does this version support Firefox? Thanks. MC No issues for iPrint 4.0.5 under Firefox 1.0.1 and 1.0.2. I also had no issues under earlier iPrint clients either. >>> Mike<curt@fordhamprep.org> 4/14/2005 10:55 AM >>> There is a new IPrint client (4.05) on Novell's site. Does this version support Firefox? Thanks. MC Michael Fraser wrote: > No issues for iPrint 4.0.5 under Firefox 1.0.1 and 1.0.2. > > I also had no issues under earlier iPrint clients either. > >...

Firefox support should be ...
-- i think -- Firefox support should last 5 years to 7 years for Firefox 2.x.x.x and 3.x.x ...

Firefox Not supported
Name: Chris Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox Not supported Comments: Firefox not supported on NatWest online banking. Running Firefox version 3.1b3 Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; en-GB; rv:1.9.1b3) Gecko/20090305 Firefox/3.1b3 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

firefox support
Name: hen Product: Firefox Summary: firefox support Comments: firefox should support Firefox 2.x.x.x and 3.x.x - 5 years to 7 years should be good support Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092417 Firefox/3.0.3 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

FIrefox support
I have had a message posted now for about two weeks in here and no replies - I'm used to the old Netscape support group that seemed to be very involved in anyone's issues - a lot of discussion and support. Does anyone have suggestions for links for technical support for Firefox browser? I like the browser and would like to switch over from Netscape but I need some help. Appreciate any ideas and links. On 23.09.2007 01:29, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused technical80@yahoo.com to generate the following:? : > I have had a message posted now for about two weeks in here ...

Firefox Support?
Hopefully someone will answer this. I have seen several posts asking about Firefox support in NW65SP3 with no responses. I see that support should be there in SP3, but it isn't working on any of the servers in our school district. I am running FF 1.0.4, and the 4.0.5 iPrint client. We are still receiving the message that iPrint is not installed. Is there something that I need to do on the server to enable iPrint support for other browsers? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy M. Musa Community Consolidated School District 93 ...

Firefox or not Firefox
Name: M B Fletcher Email: mf38794atntlworlddotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox or not Firefox Comments: You asked why I took it off but did not ask more than the basics. I put security but in fact I put on Fire fox today and found a GOOGLE front page for searching when I had nothing there before. I wondered if I had been hijacked or you had done a very stupid update. I still do not know for sure. I do not ever use Google that I know of. The biggest spy on computers in the world and you should know better. If I find it is correct on Firefox I will go back to IE. At...

Firefox support
I have been experimenting around with Mozilla's Firefox browser, here are my questions: 1. has anyone else been looking into this, if so what have you found for compatibility 2. I have found that only 1 of the page layouts render correctly in Firefox, does anyone know why, or if this is being worked on? Thanks again for your time and knowledge 1. has anyone else been looking into this, if so what have you found for compatibility Some of the html editors don't work that well or at all in FF. 2. I have found that only 1 of the page layouts render correctly in Firefox, does an...

Firefox 3.0 has broken the little AppleScript support remaining in Firefox
Name: James Yost Email: mrpersonatearthlinkdotnet Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox 3.0 has broken the little AppleScript support remaining in Firefox Comments: In previous versions of Firefox there was slight AppleScript support. Version 3 has broken what remained (i.e. properties of window n). The Macintosh community would welcome more AppleScript support - At least a "do javascript" command from AppleScript would help a great deal. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14 From URL: http...

Firefox add-on "slogger" no longer supported with Firefox 3.x
Hello everyone, I did some research on my own to find a replacement or a way to make it work with Firefox 3.x since I found it so convenient. Since this was not really successful I turn to the group if anyone has advice :-) slogger is an add-on that (as I configured it) keeps a monthly log of URLs that I loaded (with timestamps) and a text-only-version of the pages (named with the timestamp) so that I can do full-text-search. Whenever I didn't remember where I had been seeing some information I searched through these logs and I did find what I was looking for quite ...

Web resources about - Resizing - mozilla.support.firefox

ASP.NET Image Resizing & Cropping Module for IIS - Free & Open Source
Resize, watermark, crop, rotate and filter from the image URL. Usable from javascript, css, html, php, ruby, python, asp, asp.net, anything! ...

Recutting and Resizing Saw Teeth - with Paul Sellers - YouTube
No matter the reason, this video show you how simple it is to cut new saw teeth in any handsaw. Yes, that means from small dovetail saws to the ...

This Upcoming Jailbreak Tweak Allows For Notification Resizing
... you can’t see the above video, please click this link .) Source: Jailbreak Nation This Upcoming Jailbreak Tweak Allows For Notification Resizing ...

Apple exploring self-resizing keys for iPhone keyboard
A patent application revealed on Thursday shows that Apple may be working on improving the accuracy of the touchscreen keyboards featured in ...

Greenshot adds screenshot callouts, resizing, more
You might have missed it over the holidays, but just before Christmas the excellent screenshot tool Greenshot was updated to version 1.2 with ...

'Seam carving' photo resizing now for video
Researchers have shown 'seam carving' for expanding or shrinking photos while preserving important elements, but now it works on video, too. ...

This Resizing Of The Batter's Box Sponsored By The Three Stooges
Yesterday's White Sox home opener against the Tigers was delayed when Detroit slugger Miguel Cabrera noticed the batter's boxes weren't in the ...

Gmail 4.2.1 for Android adds easier resizing, swipe features and more
That leaked Gmail APK we peeked at a month or so ago turned out to be right on the money. Google has just released version 4.2.1 of the Gmail ...

Resizing
June 22 (Bloomberg) Citigroup Inc., the bank that's lost more than any other in the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market, plans to fire as much ...

Apple Seems Slightly More Apologetic as it Removes Page Resizing Code
Apple continues to make an absolutely huge mess of apologising to Samsung, with the Javascript that initially hid the legal correction from view ...

Resources last updated: 1/4/2016 10:56:58 PM