Mozilla firefox v.8 out now

[Scared0o0Rabbit]

For those firebird users unaware of the fact, it's name is changed and there's a new version out on www.mozilla.org

 

[Des-ROW]

Downloading...

 

[Gallstaff]

Pheonix>firebird>firefox... why keep changing the name

 

[it290]

Because they keep having problems with other projects having the same name..

 

[Pyrite]

They have a thing for copyrighted names Firefox is registered too just do a search on google.

 

[Scared0o0Rabbit]

mozilla firetruck v.9!

 

[Gallstaff]

Now that I think about it... wasnt't there a movie called firefox

 

[it290]

I don't know if they're as concerned about copyrighted materials since the whole project is not-for-profit; AFAIK the Phoenix and Firebird changes came about because there were other GPL projects with those names.

 

[Dyne]

any way to import cookies from IE to this browser? it auto imported my favorites (which i thought was spiffy).

 

[antime]

Dear lord this is shit... It automatically appends an extension to what it believes are known filetypes even if you specify a filename. Every goddamn variation of Mozilla I've tried has had trouble with this, how hard can it be to get it right?

 

[racketboy]

yeah that sucks.

I only seem to have it happen with MPEG files though.

 

[antime]

It happens on more or less every "known" filetype. Try HTML, JPEG and so on. Now it's just worse than ever.

 

[racketboy]

You could always complain on the Mozilla boards if it bothers you that much.

 

[antime]

I had a look at their Bugzilla and the issue seems to have a "DONTFIX" status, ie. it's by design, probably to help clueless people who would be incapable of changing the extension if they had to. Click and drool rules.

 

[kahuna]

Originally posted by Zheræ@Feb 9, 2004 @ 07:56 PM

They have a thing for copyrighted names Firefox is registered too just do a search on google.

Not to mention, the logo looks like a fox humping the whole world.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

 

[ExCyber]

I've only skimmed a couple relevant Bugzilla entries, but I think the main reasons are:

1) It's not hard to accidentally delete the extension if you only want to edit the filename, and then there's no easy way to get it back without restarting the download (which could be problematic on files that are wrapped in anti-leech systems, license agreements, etc.).

2) There's generally no reason that you should have to change the extension in the save dialog. The extension is typically correct unless the web server lies about the file type (which happens with distressing regularity). The HTTP spec only allows the browser to perform its own determination if a MIME type is not specified, so it's the server's job to either provide a correct type or not provide one at all:

Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a

Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If

and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the

recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its

content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the

resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD

treat it as type "application/octet-stream".

(emphasis added)

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by ExCyber@Feb 10, 2004 @ 08:14 PM

I've only skimmed a couple relevant Bugzilla entries, but I think the main reasons are:

1) It's not hard to accidentally delete the extension if you only want to edit the filename, and then there's no easy way to get it back without restarting the download (which could be problematic on files that are wrapped in anti-leech systems, license agreements, etc.).

2) There's generally no reason that you should have to change the extension in the save dialog. The extension is typically correct unless the web server lies about the file type (which happens with distressing regularity). The HTTP spec only allows the browser to perform its own determination if a MIME type is not specified, so it's the server's job to either provide a correct type or not provide one at all:

Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a

Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If

and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the

recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its

content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the

resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD

treat it as type "application/octet-stream".

(emphasis added)

guess that sounds reasonable

 

[antime]

The quoted bit states that the client may try to guess the type from the filename if no type is provided by the server, not that the filename is to be determined by the mimetype. Furthermore it is extremely poor UI design to change the semantics of the Save As... dialog like that.

Don't even get me started on how often you have to correct the filename, specially when using Mozilla and derivatives. I don't know (nor do I care all that much) if it's due to stricter standards conformance or general braindeadness but it seems like you just get files named "download.php" more often than not nowadays.

 

[Pearl Jammzz]

I dislike how it wont let me save it as what I want. I went to go download sum images for a class PS project and it wouldn't let me save them as bitmaps (thus perserving what little quality they were). This really blows, and might make me switch back if it bugs me that much. Anyone to get around this at all?

 

[ExCyber]

Yeah, it's not saying anything about filenames, but it's generally the most likely reason for you to need to change it. After doing some deeper searching on it it looks like the reasons I gave are pretty much invalid (IIRC the filepicker has undo) and the main MIME guy said in '02 that it was supposed to be going away...