It looks like they've sped up forward/back, folded in some of the extension features and fixed the awful autoupdate. The coolest new thing to me is the newfangled SVG/Canvascape support. Here's a couple of neat demos.
http://www.abrahamjoffe.com.au/ben/canvascape/
http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/svgtetris/svgtetris.svg
Canvas in particular will be used for some way cool things. Safari also finally fixed their broken canvas in the latest update (you'd THINK they'd get it right since they introduced it, but apparently not).
Yay, no more Flash!
Well... for Firefox users anyway. I hope this makes for some cool Google Maps mash-ups.
>>3
That's probably one of the only things that bugs me about this release. I mean, what's the deal with it anyway?
>>3-4
some reasons why this is a Good Thing:
What the hell are you talking about?
I'd shy away from Firefox if I were any of you. Did you see the screenshot from that one guy who had the program eat up over 1GB? Forget that!
>>10
I didn't know 4-ch was important enough to attract Microsoft FUD shill.
>>10
so what? i've had IE eat up over 2gb...
>>11,12
lol. Firefox obviously has leaks all over the place. Not exactly a secret or anything.
>>13
that's why we should all be using konqueror, safari, or links
Safari leaks like a sieve.
Links breaks RFC 2616 and does it better than Netscape.
Lynx ftw.
How do I get rid of "Deer Park" in the titlebar? It's supposed to say "Firefox" argh! That aside, it really is an improvement and has pushed the bar even higher for the IE team. Anyway, the real question is how long 'til Netscape integrates DP into its own bastardized orphan browser? Current is 8.0.4, which is based on Firefox 1.0.7.
> Lynx ftw.
Seconded.
>>18: Only the official Firefox release can use the Firefox brand name. From the sound of it, you have an unofficial build. For example, I downloaded an unofficial build of Firefox optimized for the G4 processor in my Powerbook, and it also does the Deer Park thing.
G4 Firefox: http://www.beatnikpad.com/archives/2005/12/01/firefox15
I have an unofficial one (pigfoot) and it says 'Mozilla Firefox' in it. It would be nice if it said nothing though.
Safari is the only browser that passes the acid2 test. Why would I ever want to use anything else?
The Acid2 test is overrated. It's completely arbitrary; no serious sites use CSS to that level anyway. I mean, really, what the test does can be done better with a simple PNG image and far simpler CSS mouse-over code.
That being said, Konqueror (which shares the KHTML code base with Safari) and iCab (which uses its own rendering engine; http://icab.de ) also pass.
>>22
Yes but we like using artificial and pointless benchmarks to make us feel better about the arbitrary software choices we make, and hence compensate for our insecurity about penis size.
Or something.
There's nothing pointless or arbitary about it - it's a test of standards compliance. Saying you can do the same with a PNG is missing the point entirely - it's not an example of good use of CSS. It specifically uses both valid and invalid CSS, and is designed to present the results in a way to make it easy to see if you pass or not.
That said, the issue of whether your browser passes or not isn't going to have much impact on your day-to-day browsing. But good standards compliance in browsers makes every web designer's job easier, so it's still worth promoting.
I don't think being able to parse invalid CSS (intentional or otherwise) counts as standards compliance. In fact, shouldn't broken code just be ignored by a perfectly compliant browser? In my opinion at least, it should; it shouldn't try to "fix" the problem in its output. So you could have a perfectly standards-compliant browser that fails the Acid2 test, no?
>>25
in order to pass the Acid2 test, the browser must ignore the invalid CSS... as long as web designers only use valid CSS, it doesn't really matter what the browser does with invalid CSS as long as it handles valid CSS correctly, but unfortunately not everyone uses valid CSS... so we are left to decide whether we should try to display a page with invalid CSS as the author intended it to be displayed or if we should ignore the invalid CSS... from the point of view of web designers who use invalid CSS and most end users, trying to fix invalid CSS is a good thing, and from the point of view of web designers who only use valid CSS, it doesn't matter what the browser does with invalid CSS... the only people who think ignoring invalid CSS is a good thing are pedantic lunixtards and people who can't afford post-1992 hardware.
The standard specifies, to some extent, what should happen when the browser encounter invalid statements. So yes, handling invalid CSS correctly is part of standards compliance. The reason it is important is, I'm guessing, mostly forwards and backwards compatibility. Future additions to CSS might look invalid to current browsers, but future specs will be designed based on the specified behaviours for handling invalid CSS. At least that'd be the theory.
>>27
So you think rather than ignoring invalid css, every browser should do their best at an attempt to render it?
I think it's better that a webmaster realises his incompetence rather than seeing their site looking fine in IE and throu his ignorence claiming the rest of the browsers suck.
>I think it's better that a webmaster realises his incompetence rather than seeing their site looking fine in IE and throu his ignorence claiming the rest of the browsers suck.
it's much easier to change the way a browser works than to change the way an idiot's brain works
There's nothing idiotic about writing code and looking at it in a browser, and seeing it work, and therefore assuming you wrote working code.
Conversely, if it doesn't work, you'd assume you didn't write correct code. The conditions for what is correct and incorrect code are arbitary enough that it doesn't really matter what they are, as long as it is made clear when and when not the code is correct.
In summary: If browsers don't display invalid code correctly, people will write valid code. If browsers try their best to display invalid code, people will write invalid code.
I tried 1.5 today...
The dropdown menus are now ugly, no borders anymore.
Install locked up when it tried to update the extensions. I could not find "allow web sites to install software" in 1.5, I had to use my previous version.
A bunch of my extensions won't work anymore, and no updates for these. Bye bye 1.5.
Dunno if related, but immediately after installing 1.5 my net connection got sluggish and disconnecting at random. Reboot didn't fix it. I had to shutdown the machine and let it cool for a while. Now working again.
lol Firefox more liek MONEY TALKS amirite
