...

View Full Version : Firefox 5 was just released



Kor
06-21-2011, 07:20 PM
FF5 was released. But I can not sense what is new relative to FF4. No explanation, no "What is new", nothing. I have just installed FF4 about two months ago. Why straight FF5? Don't we need an explanation, something, from Mozilla? :) I guess they have copied the Chrome's style: a new version every 2-3 months.

What about the add-ons? Are there compatible with those for FF4? Am I blind, or I am not able to find details on their site? :)

MattF
06-21-2011, 07:24 PM
Something to do with the security on the WebGL front mainly, I'd guess, judging from this:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/microsoft-calls-graphics-technology-in-chrome-and-firefox-harmful/3470?tag=nl.e589

MattF
06-21-2011, 07:31 PM
That is one of the updates. The current changes are listed here:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0beta/releasenotes/

oracleguy
06-21-2011, 07:34 PM
Based on that change list it sounds like they should have called in version 4.1. There isn't enough to justify a major version bump.

Though this relates back to what I was saying in the google thread: http://www.codingforums.com/showpost.php?p=1097395&postcount=4

MattF
06-21-2011, 07:40 PM
It's probably to distance this release from V4. One reason being that they'll want M$'s bragging rights to die quickly, :D and second being that people tend to refer to a general version being insecure, rather than an incremental version. They'd have probably had people asking six months down the line if that weakness was still present in the current version. They disassociated it now though.

drhowarddrfine
06-22-2011, 04:15 AM
But I can not sense what is new relative to FF4.

Why straight FF5? Don't we need an explanation, something, from Mozilla?
This explains why it's so hard to explain things to some codingforums members. Details of all this were published and much talked about all over the 'net months ago. The purpose of the accelerated major release numbers is to not hold back smaller improvements by larger ones that take longer to develop. That is what caused FF4 to take so long for release.

The list is long, CSS Animations, javascript engine speed, security, and on and on.

Fumigator
06-22-2011, 06:44 AM
This explains why it's so hard to explain things to some codingforums members. Details of all this were published and much talked about all over the 'net months ago. The purpose of the accelerated major release numbers is to not hold back smaller improvements by larger ones that take longer to develop. That is what caused FF4 to take so long for release.

The list is long, CSS Animations, javascript engine speed, security, and on and on.

Go away, troll.

VIPStephan
06-22-2011, 12:18 PM
But I’m still getting that gray square that keeps covering the top left corner of my screen when I open and close the preferences window. Seems to be a Mac-only issue and it doesn’t seem to be very common seeing the sparse search results about this on the internet. So I suppose nobody here would know how to fix this?

Inigoesdr
06-22-2011, 07:50 PM
These are the highlights:

Added support for CSS animations
The Do-Not-Track header preference has been moved to increase discoverability
Tuned HTTP idle connection logic for increased performance
Improved canvas, JavaScript, memory, and networking performance
Improved standards support for HTML5, XHR, MathML, SMIL, and canvas
Improved spell checking for some locales
Improved desktop environment integration for Linux users
WebGL content can no longer load cross-domain textures
Background tabs have setTimeout and setInterval clamped to 1000ms to improve performance
Fixed several stability issues
Fixed several security issues
The major one they are touting is the do-not-track header. The list of fixed bugs (https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/buglist.html) is much longer, but I still don't think this warrants another major release so soon. This accelerated release version numbering they are using is silly.

MattF
06-22-2011, 09:36 PM
Just regarding that do-not-track header, are people expecting that it will lead to their requests not being logged at all by any server that they connect to too, rather than just blocking the likes of analytics, ad software and the like? This page just made me wonder:

http://donottrack.us/server.html

Seems a bit blaise to expect that servers won't log requests for their content.

VIPStephan
06-23-2011, 01:22 PM
No, I don’t think that people will expect that they leave no traces at all. It’s pretty clear that it’s about tracking like market analytics and behavioral targeting.

Lemonium
07-02-2011, 01:48 PM
FF5 is a peace of $!#@. it'll stop responding every time you loose internet connection....that's because there's a big load on our net providers ...but it wasn't like that in FF3...it was the best version for me and it was STABLE!(at least)

grittykitty
07-07-2011, 03:46 AM
I like FF5. Honestly, I haven't noticed much difference between 4 and 5 though....... But really, I like FF5. I like Firefox altogether.

I have ever since its early days (when I was growing up, I used to love "induling" in the Intern0t Exploder campaigns and thus, was quite the Netscape Navigator fan, despite it crashing every ten minutes).

:)

BWiz
07-07-2011, 07:51 PM
I miss Navigator. The old one, with the N at the top right and the silhouette. Those were the days. Of course I was like 6 at the time, so whatever.

Kor
07-07-2011, 09:31 PM
I miss Navigator. The old one, with the N at the top right and the silhouette. Those were the days. Of course I was like 6 at the time, so whatever.
Don't. I hated the document.layers of the NS as much as document.all of IE :)

marc92
07-11-2011, 06:54 PM
I still use 3.6 version because a lot of plug-ins can not be used in ff5. ;(

Kor
07-12-2011, 10:56 AM
I still use 3.6 version because a lot of plug-ins can not be used in ff5. ;(
I bet a lot of plug-ins and addons are, in fact, completely useless.

A flash-blocker, X-marks, Java Console and FireBug is all that a human been might need installed as addons on FF :D They are all FF5 compatible :)

And all the usual plug-ins (Acrobate, Google Earth, MSOffice, QuickTime, Shockwave, Winamp, etc) are rather independent on the version, thus works ok under FF5 as well. So? :)

Fumigator
07-12-2011, 06:24 PM
I bet a lot of plug-ins and addons are, in fact, completely useless.

A flash-blocker, X-marks, Java Console and FireBug is all that a human been might need installed as addons on FF :D They are all FF5 compatible :)

And all the usual plug-ins (Acrobate, Google Earth, MSOffice, QuickTime, Shockwave, Winamp, etc) are rather independent on the version, thus works ok under FF5 as well. So? :)

Totally subjective. You seem to believe your opinion is the only one that matters.

Apostropartheid
07-13-2011, 01:58 AM
Totally subjective. You seem to believe your opinion is the only one that matters.

The default position of any normal man. But I would say that he's likely right: many people have many non-essential extensions which they might not use but keep anyway, contributing to Firefox's infamous memory issues.

MrPolarZero
07-21-2011, 07:26 PM
I don't like firefox 5. There are many plugins from previous versions of firefox that is not compatible with 5. I'm still using version 3.5.

OQuotes
07-26-2011, 06:36 PM
I don't like it either and have not installed it. Of course, they remind me every 12 hours to install it!

Kor
07-27-2011, 12:29 PM
Totally subjective. You seem to believe your opinion is the only one that matters.
An opinion is an opinion. You can not please everybody with your opinion, can you? :D

The problem is simple: I don't say that anyone should use only my plug-ins, but I want to say that you can not install all the published plugins and hope that your browser will work as before. :rolleyes:

AndrewCollins
07-30-2011, 09:32 PM
Yup. Like some of you I still use 3.6 because of my plugins for SEO.

praneybehl
08-13-2011, 12:12 PM
Yup. Like some of you I still use 3.6 because of my plugins for SEO.

I agree, but I would love to see better support for SEO Plugins.

Praney

bazz
08-14-2011, 02:25 AM
I'm still on ff 3.6.10 because of web dev plugns, like web developer and rainbow as well as fast dial.

drhowarddrfine
08-15-2011, 04:34 PM
I'm still on ff 3.6.10 because of web dev plugns
Those are extensions or add-ons, not plugins. Plugins are not the same thing.

Any extensions that don't work after FF 3.6.10 must have been abandoned or are useless if they haven't been updated by now.

Fumigator
08-15-2011, 04:42 PM
Bazz just mentioned three thingies (call them whatever you like as far as I care) that are useful and not updated. Abandoned does not automatically mean useless.

drhowarddrfine
08-15-2011, 04:51 PM
Bazz just mentioned three thingies (call them whatever you like as far as I care)Add to the confusion. There are reasons why things that are different have different names.
Abandoned does not automatically mean useless.Who said that? I certainly did not.

My point is, if there is a useful tool most people like to use, it will be maintained unless the author walks away from it without giving away the code. So either people don't use it or find it useful, or the author abandoned it, or both.

purifiedlife
08-16-2011, 03:25 AM
I know Im going to be explaining to everyone I know the uses Firefox, "Yes you can update and nothing will change" , "Yes even if nothing will change just update"

allen001
08-16-2011, 04:27 AM
I have not updated mine yet because of some incompatibilities with some add ons

ellent1xc
08-16-2011, 09:10 AM
I installed ff5 but I'm not happy with it. Anyone here who can tell me how to remove it? I want to use ff3.6 instead

bullant
08-16-2011, 09:17 AM
Why, what's wrong with FF5?

I've been using it for months now without any problems.

But to remove it, if you're using a windows pc, just go to the control panel and remove FF5 just like you remove any other program.

ellent1xc
08-16-2011, 10:06 AM
thanks bullant, I'll try that. the thing with the new ff5 is that I can't install all the addons I used on the old version.

a1garagedoorsaz
08-17-2011, 01:35 AM
Well, Firefox 6 is out now and I couldn't ask for better.

Fumigator
08-17-2011, 04:29 AM
Well I use Firefox pretty much exclusively but I have to say their versioning is just stupid. But 20% faster? I will update asap :rolleyes:

drhowarddrfine
08-17-2011, 04:39 AM
Well I use Firefox pretty much exclusively but I have to say their versioning is just stupid. Of course, this is the way everyone is going, including Google's Chrome. It's praised by a number of people including ArsTechnica today. The reasoning behind it makes perfect sense. But you think it's stupid.
But 20% faster? I will update asap :rolleyes:You roll your eyes against the testers on the web who've seen it and base your guess on what?

Fumigator
08-17-2011, 05:23 AM
I know it's stupid. Just marketing.

I just updated to 6.0 even though firegestures isn't updated yet so I was serious and rolling my eyes at the same time. Quit being such a D-bag.

drhowarddrfine
08-19-2011, 12:08 AM
I know it's stupid. Just marketing.
If it's just marketing, why is there movement afoot by Asa Dotzler to eliminate version numbering altogether? Saying it's just marketing shows you don't understand what's going on despite all the articles on the 'net about it.

webdev1958
08-19-2011, 11:22 PM
Netmarketshare (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0) say IE still has 52.7%, Firefox 21.5%, Chrome 13.5% and then there are the 'also rans'.

I tend to agree that marketing is one of the main drivers. IE has version 9, Opera has version 11, Chrome has version 13 which could be creating a perception to 'mum and dad' type internet users that Firefox is lagging behind in development if they look at just the version numbers. Hence ff could be seen as trying to 'catch up' in the version number stakes.

btw, I use IE v9 and don't have any problems with it.

oracleguy
08-20-2011, 04:25 PM
Netmarketshare (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0) say IE still has 52.7%, Firefox 21.5%, Chrome 13.5% and then there are the 'also rans'.

I tend to agree that marketing is one of the main drivers. IE has version 9, Opera has version 11, Chrome has version 13 which could be creating a perception to 'mum and dad' type internet users that Firefox is lagging behind in development if they look at just the version numbers. Hence ff could be seen as trying to 'catch up' in the version number stakes.

btw, I use IE v9 and don't have any problems with it.
I don't think that is an actual problem, or if it is, it isn't a big one. The users you are talking about barely understand the difference between the browser and the OS. They probably have no idea what the version number is of the browser they are using.

Firefox gained most of its popularity when it was in versions 1 and 2 and IE and Opera were at much higher version numbers.

drhowarddrfine
08-20-2011, 08:38 PM
I tend to agree that marketing is one of the main drivers.The point made by both Google and, now, Mozilla is that faster versioning allowed for inclusion of improvements that would be held up by bigger projects/improvements waiting for a major number change, say from 6.0 to 7.0. In the past, small to medium changes waiting for a major number change could be put off for a year or more. There is a quasi-standard way of implementing version numbering and that got in the way of introducing these 'smaller' features. That's it. No marketing involved except if you want to say introducing features faster as marketing.


btw, I use IE v9 and don't have any problems with it.
That's only due to the hard work of developers who make it so you don't notice the multitude of problems with IE9. For some examples of how far behind IE9 is, see my first link below.

webdev1958
08-21-2011, 12:50 AM
The point made by both Google and, now, Mozilla is that faster versioning allowed for inclusion of improvements that would be held up by bigger projects/improvements waiting for a major number change, say from 6.0 to 7.0. In the past, small to medium changes waiting for a major number change could be put off for a year or more.

Sorry, but I don't believe that for a minute. If they wanted or needed to publish a small to medium change there is nothing physically stopping them. They could easily publish a patch, so I still think marketing is in play here to some extent.

..see my first link below.
That link of yours has been around for ages and if IE was as bad as some think then it's market share would have fallen away much more quickly and sooner.

Firefox still has less than half the market share of IE, according to Netmarketshare, so I don't think it will overtake it any time soon and in the overall scheme of things since IE9 doesn't pose any major issues from plain static to database driven websites, there are much more important things to think about than which browser is better in their mind.

If a developer knows what (s)he is doing then browser incompatibility is not an issue from a technical point of view.

drhowarddrfine
08-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Sorry, but I don't believe that for a minute. If they wanted or needed to publish a small to medium change there is nothing physically stopping them. Then you don't understand how the version number system works and it's the only reason so many complain about it. I would try to explain it myself but it's been too long since I've messed with it myself. Better to look it up on Wikipedia.


That link of yours has been around for agesFirst published February 15th of this year; about six months.
and if IE was as bad as some think then it's market share would have fallen away much more quickly and sooner. When I first got into this business, IE had 95% market share. Today it has around 50%. It has been losing market share almost every month for those seven years and has been passed by Firefox in Europe. Perhaps the people at Tom's Hardware can give insight (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/internet-explorer-google-chrome-firefox-apple-safari,news-10709.html).

since IE9 doesn't pose any major issues from plain static to database driven websitesDid you read any of the link I sent you? Look through my second link for all the missing items there. Or try this one (http://findmebyip.com/litmus/).


If a developer knows what (s)he is doing then browser incompatibility is not an issue from a technical point of view.
From a technical point of view, IE is the bain of our existence. There are tens, if not hundreds of web sites dedicated to providing hacks to fix IE. There are none for any other browser. There are tens, if not hundreds of frameworks (http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/)created to fix problems in IE. For my company, getting code that works in all browsers almost always requires hacking to get it work in IE. Yes, it can be done, but the point is, you have to modify or rewrite code to do so causing increased billable hours for work that should not have to be done. We once calculated that to be 10% to 50% more hours into any project that required IE support (which is virtually all of them).

Don't tell anyone you think IE9 has no issues. It is still the worst browser on the planet by far.

webdev1958
08-21-2011, 04:07 PM
From a technical point of view, IE is the bain of our existence.
Don't tell anyone you think IE9 has no issues. It is still the worst browser on the planet by far.

I don't have any problems with IE8 onwards and I have created static and database driven websites. With more than double the people using IE over FF, IE can't be as bad as you are making out.


We once calculated that to be 10% to 50% more hours into any project that required IE support (which is virtually all of them).


That's a lot more hours than I need. Give an example of the project where you needed 50% more hours and an example of the code you had problems with.

Kamalbd
08-21-2011, 04:34 PM
Hi,
Thanks for post. I am also thinking about FF5 version. Actually whats new in it.
I use FF4.

zcyka
08-21-2011, 05:32 PM
Just up to FF 6 here - this time they thankfully worked with their add-on people so that the plug ins were functional before I went ahead and installed.

I was cranky for a while after FF5's install since they didn't provide for refusing it if the plug ins weren't updated.

Thankfully, someone was paying attention!

drhowarddrfine
08-21-2011, 06:20 PM
I don't have any problems with IE8 onwards and I have created static and database driven websites. With more than double the people using IE over FF, IE can't be as bad as you are making out.You are forgetting that IE comes preinstalled on Windows and most Windows users are amateurs, taking what is given to them because it's there and have little to no knowledge what a browser is, much less that there are others available and the reasons to switch. And then there are the large corporate customers who are stuck with older Microsoft software that works with IE only.


That's a lot more hours than I need.Depends on what you're working on and which versions of IE you need to be compliant with. You can knock that down if you don't have to support IE6. We now charge a 50% premium for any hours needed to support IE6. Fortunately, we only have one customer that cares about it anymore.
Give an example of the project where you needed 50% more hours and an example of the code you had problems with.No I won't. But try serving XHTML to IE and see how far you get. Try DOM Level 2 and see how far you get. Let's see how far you get with CSS3 or HTML5.

Bleh. Merely asking the question means your sites must be using simplistic markup and code or are unfamilar with current practices. If you're using current tech, it doesn't work in IE, or doesn't work well. This is talked to death all over the internet so I'm surprised when anyone thinks otherwise. If you ran through my links, it would be obvious how far behind IE is. No developer I know has a high opinion of it.

webdev1958
08-22-2011, 01:08 AM
Merely asking the question means your sites must be using simplistic markup and code or are unfamilar with current practices.

Since you won't post any code to give an example then the above is all relative because what is easy and simple for me might be difficult for someone else to understand.


Let's see how far you get with CSS3 or HTML5.


HTML5 and CSS3 are not official standards yet and so browser support for them is variable in the major browsers. When they become official by the W3C I'll start using them for client work.

Until then I will use html4 or xhtml and css2 with which I have no major issues with IE or any other of the majors for both static and database driven websites.

drhowarddrfine
08-22-2011, 03:13 AM
HTML5 and CSS3 are not official standards yet and so browser support for them is variable in the major browsers. When they become official by the W3C I'll start using them for client work. Ah. So did you just start using CSS2.1 last year? Cause that's when it became an official recommendation. Obviously you are unaware that none of the W3C standards become final until there are at least two full implementations. So, unlike the rest of the world of development, you won't be using HTML5 or CSS3 for at least 10 more years.


Until then I will use html4 or xhtml and css2 with which I have no major issues with IE or any other of the majors for both static and database driven websites.Then you verified what I said. Since IE<9 does not recognize xhtml served as xhtml, this indicates what I said, you have not delved deep enough into how browsers and the standards work for you to be aware or understand the multitude of problems with IE. Even media queries are not native to IE9 hampering efforts with compatibility in mobile devices.

So you really need to do some studying and Googling to find what you're missing. Start with the links I gave you, or this one (http://yellowshoe.com.au/standards/#css).

INTERNET EXPLORER WTF?
We really should be thankful that non-ie browsers have such great consistency, I have never needed a CSS hack for a non-ie browser.

Without IE, web development would just be too easy.

webdev1958
08-22-2011, 03:37 AM
So, unlike the rest of the world of development, you won't be using HTML5 or CSS3 for at least 10 more years.


I'll wait however long it takes. From memory, html5 could become official around 2014.

You haven't posted any code where you have had any major issues and I think it's most likely because you are too scared someone will show how easy it could be to work around it.

I don't have any major issues with IE8 onwards or any of the other major browsers for both static and database driven websites.

whitecouncil
08-22-2011, 09:14 AM
I personally don't like firefox 5, it is getting more and more complicated with every upgrades, i get problem visiting sites shows this error
This Connection is Untrusted what can i do to resolve this

drhowarddrfine
08-22-2011, 04:46 PM
You haven't posted any code where you have had any major issues and I think it's most likely because you are too scared someone will show how easy it could be to work around it.Pfft! You are so naive.


I don't have any major issues with IE8 onwards or any of the other major browsers for both static and database driven websites.
Like I said, if you don't go beyond HTML and simple CSS, you aren't aware of anything so you have much you don't know about.

webdev1958
08-22-2011, 04:50 PM
I disagree.

I don't have any major issues with IE8+ or any other of the majors and if IE was as bad as you try to portray it shouldn't be any problem for you to post some code where it is an issue for you.

drhowarddrfine
08-22-2011, 08:39 PM
I've already told you some things that don't work in IE and given you links pointing out the same, but that's not good enough for you? I mean, you could please explain to me why you can't serve XHTML as application/xml+xhtml till IE9 came out? Or why couldn't we use SVG (poorly) till just then? Why do we need html5shiv? Here's another, why doesn't this link work in IE? http://goo.gl/4DhpY and why doesn't this work the same in IE as any other browser yet it uses standard code? http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ ? Or how about these? https://demos.mozilla.org/en-US/#dashboard

I'm going out of town tomorrow to a client site for a week and a half but I'll check back. That should give you enough to do.

webdev1958
08-23-2011, 02:14 AM
sorry, but I don't believe you're going to see a client at all.

I think you'll find that for security reasons members don't have to click posted links so when you answer my request earlier in the thread and post code that you have had issues with then I will return the courtesy and answer your request.

I don't go around fixing other peoples' stuff ups for free. If you wrote the code in any of those links, post the relevant pieces of code you are having issues with or if you didn't write the code and the sites' owners want help to fix their site they can post on any website development forum they like.

In the mean time I don't have any major issues with IE8 onwards or any of the other major browsers.

drhowarddrfine
08-23-2011, 04:16 AM
Just as I thought. You can't reply to the questions because you don't know the basics. You don't know your subject. You're a waste of time.

Fumigator
08-23-2011, 04:30 AM
I wish this had come true...

http://www.codingforums.com/showpost.php?p=958911&postcount=17

webdev1958
08-23-2011, 07:03 AM
Just as I thought. You can't reply to the questions because you don't know the basics. You don't know your subject. You're a waste of time.

The reason I didn't answer your questions is because you didn't first answer mine. If you need to be taken seriously then consider practising what you preach by answering other peoples' questions before expecting them to answer yours.


I think you'll find that for security reasons members don't have to click posted links so when you answer my request earlier in the thread and post code that you have had issues with then I will return the courtesy and answer your request.

I don't go around fixing other peoples' stuff ups for free. If you wrote the code in any of those links, post the relevant pieces of code you are having issues with or if you didn't write the code and the sites' owners want help to fix their site they can post on any website development forum they like.

In the mean time I don't have any major issues with IE8 onwards or any of the other major browsers.You still haven't posted any code as requested earlier on.

VIPStephan
08-23-2011, 09:37 AM
webdev1958, don’t argue with drhowarddrfine (especially not about Internet Explorer), he has strained the patience of many members before. There is no agreement with him when it comes to IE so just let him live in his own world and don’t give a hoot.

webdev1958
08-23-2011, 10:30 AM
huh - what's going on here?

He's not breaking any rules with his posts and I'm not breaking any rules with my replies. So what are you on about since I don't have any problems with drhowarddrfine - he's calling things as he sees it and I'm calling things as I see it :)

If you have an issue with this thread why not just shut it down then?

VIPStephan
08-23-2011, 10:34 AM
If you have an issue with this thread why not just shut it down then?

This is being discussed momentarily. The thing is that these discussions donít add any value to this thread/forum; and believe me, they are just tiresome when the same arguments are being repeated over and over again. So, if you like to argue with drhowarddrfine without ever coming to an agreement then feel free to do so but preferably in personal messages or via e-mail.

webdev1958
08-23-2011, 10:47 AM
I don't do PM's with members and I only do them with moderators because we're not allowed to shut them off as well.

I'm not arguing with him and I don't see his posts as arguing with me. If a moderator sees it differently then I imagine they have the option to shut down the thread and/or direct their concerns to drhowarddrfine as well and not just me :)

If your concerns are directed at me only, then I'm not interested as it takes 2 people to have a discussion like drhowarddrfine and I are having.

Apostropartheid
08-23-2011, 04:00 PM
I don't do PM's with members and I only do them with moderators because we're not allowed to shut them off as well.

I'm not arguing with him and I don't see his posts as arguing with me. If a moderator sees it differently then I imagine they have the option to shut down the thread and/or direct their concerns to drhowarddrfine as well and not just me :)

If your concerns are directed at me only, then I'm not interested as it takes 2 people to have a discussion like drhowarddrfine and I are having.

You've not been here long, that's why you don't really understand.

drdr is like our semi-resident moody grandfather. This argument has been spun out dozens of times, and are often as long, and nobody ever wins because neither will back down. VIPStephan was only warning you. Especially as we're all a bit tired of it now.

webdev1958
08-23-2011, 04:26 PM
You've not been here long, that's why you don't really understand.


What do you mean? Surely you're not suggesting that the world revolves around CF are you? DrDr used to post on sitepoint as well and so I know exactly what he is like?

In post 41 drdr first commented on a post I made earlier. Are you saying that if someone questions another member's view, the questioned member is not allowed to reply? All I am doing is replying to drdr's posts. Instead of telling me something I already knew, why not direct your comments to at least drdr as well and not just refer to me in your posts.

The way I see it, either drdr and I are both breaking a rule with our conversation or neither of us are breaking any rule.

I don't see what the problem is here. If the moderators have an issue with this thread either ban the members (drdr and I) or just shut down the thread.

If drdr decides to reply to my earlier post then I will decide whether to reply or not so that we both have an even number of comments to each other if I reply. If he doesn't reply anymore then I won't either since we both now have an even number of posts in our discussion.

If you don't let people reply to other members questioning their views then you are effectively censoring the discussion or even taking sides.

oracleguy
08-23-2011, 06:03 PM
No one is saying you two haven't been civil. You two can discuss Internet Explorer's compliance with web standards and the difficulty of supporting it until the heat death of the universe for all I care. However this thread is/was supposed to about Firefox 5.


1.7) Stay on topic when initiating a thread or posting a reply- When replying to a thread, try and stay true to the topic. This guideline is needed to prevent CodingForums.com from becoming a chat room, and to maintain the quality of information flowing through and stored...

I'm going to close this thread. If you feel like continuing your IE discussion you are more than welcome to create a new thread and discuss it there.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum