I am just confused these circumstance. What do Mootools developers make in new versions we find these ugly facts?
On 19 ноя, 12:17, gonchuki <[email protected]> wrote: > Opera 10.10 is inherently a buggy browser and didn't even last too > long until it was superseded by 10.50. Is there any other requirement > in your project that makes you stick to a buggy version of a browser > with 1% market share? (not that I'm against Opera, but I'm generally > against supporting the 0.001% of users with that specific version). > > On Nov 16, 6:00 am, egorpromo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Did anybody execute tests? Do you see what I see? Opera10.10 test is > > special test here. > > > On 12 ноя, 20:15, egorpromo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I discover another question. I found new versions of Mootools work > > > more badly than older versions. When I use Motools 1.2.5 (I saw > > > version in “mootools.js” file) all is correct and i don't see any > > > problem in Firefox3.0 or Opera10.10. But if I use Mootools 1.3 all > > > problems appear in both webbrowsers. > > > There are two rar-files that I made for testing. There are correct > > > mootools v1.2.5 and incorrect mootools v1.3 (that makes problems) > > > inside these files. Test it in Firefox3.0 and Opera10.10 and you will > > > see problems. > > > >http://depositfiles.com/files/7dz4mgwp9http://depositfiles.com/files/...
