adamb wrote:Whoa! Major upgrade to Winstripe! It looks good! I'm quite impressed with the primary five icons. I will miss the directional triangles. I thought they were a neat "different" feel, but the new forward and back arrows are just great. Refresh looks super. So does "stop." The house is pretty standard fare, although much more like Qute than Winstripe's first take at it. Losing the low-laying shadows was probably a good choice, considering how non-Windows-y that style of shadow is.
I'm... still... waiting... for the <strong>new</strong> "new tab" icon -- one that <em>doesn't</em> look like a toaster. Other "secondary" icons I'm assuming will be updated to fit more with this style?
But seriously, this is great. Small icons look good, too! Great job to Gerich and Horlander! It seems there was a dramatic response to feedback generated regarding the theme.
I will post screens soon as I get it for those of you curious people.
And here it is. Much better than the Winstripe for 0.9, although I still think those back/forward buttons can look better.
I'm using the Office2003 enhancement to fix the spacing between icons and clean up the interface for Windows Classic.
Last edited by PhoenixNostalgia on June 25th, 2004, 4:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Steffen wrote:vfwlkr, I think one of the reasons for the new extension management is to avoid installing outdated extensions which break the app.
so just bump the EM version number any time you make a change that would make extensions incompatible. don't bump the EM version when you release a new version of FF that lets old extensions still work. [snip]
Extensions are, well, _extensions_ to Firefox, not to extension manager, download manager, or something else. Therefore, version number of extension manager has no meaning. Extensions are designed to work with specific product; in this case it's a version of Firefox. The fact that the same extensions work with both FF 0.9 and FF 0.9.1 is coincidental.
The answer is: Most likely yes. ;-) Try to get an answer from Ben if you can't wait.
sasquatch wrote:Yeah, but if your extensions get disabled, does that also disable your ability to update them?
No. On starting a new release of Firefox the first time, you get a dialog informing you which extensions and themes were disabled. It also provides an update button. Besides, disabled extensions are still listed in the extension manager and can be updated by clicking the update button.
This process is still not good enough for a product aimed at the public at large. OK, an extension is disabled and the user has the option of enabling it (with or wthout update). If there is no update, then it is presumed that the extension is compatible, but this is in no way guaranteed, and if Firefox fails, then from the user point of view it will be a Firefox issue and not an extension issue.
One way to solve this may be to have a formal acceptance test by the Mozilla team of all extensions listed as valid on Mozilla Extension room when a new version version is released, and acting on the result of that test.
I think in future, there needs to be a mechanism of declaring (e.g.) 1.2.x as a compatible version - perhaps the definition of "1.2" as Firefox/u.m.o interprets it could be modified to mean "1.2.x", instead of "1.2.0".
The upgrade to Winstripe is excellent (based on the shot) - it'll give people impetus to upgrade from 0.9.
(neoufo51, if the image is on the page it's only downloaded once per viewer, no matter how many times it's repeated on the page; so you needn't worry about your bandwidth. But I agree quoting images is annoying, cos it wastes space.)
Greg K Nicholson wrote:I think in future, there needs to be a mechanism of declaring (e.g.) 1.2.x as a compatible version - perhaps the definition of "1.2" as Firefox/u.m.o interprets it could be modified to mean "1.2.x", instead of "1.2.0".
For this case, the extension author would set the min-supported FF version as 1.2 and the max-supported version as 1.2.9. A method similar to this will hopefully be used by all extension authors once FF 1.0 is released. Personally, I hope that authors will make their extensions workable from FF 1.0 on, so they would use min-version 1.0 and max-version 1.2.9, but that is up to them.
Steffen wrote:Firefox 0.9.1 will be made from the FIREFOX_0_9_1_BRANCH, which is basically the FIREFOX_0_9_RELEASE plus fixes for the bugs Ben mentioned in his post. So the question is not which bugs will be fixed until the release, but rather which fixes will be ported from the aviary branch to the 0.9.1 branch. ...
Actually, wouldn't it "trickle up" from the 0.9.1 branch to the "aviary" branch to the trunk in that order since each is a subset of the next?
mozillaZine is an independent Mozilla community and advocacy site. We're not affiliated or endorsed by the Mozilla Corporation but we love them just the same.