Re: Display change

[Ed Mullen]

Not@home wrote:

Since Seamonkey 2.12 et seq came to my windows vista machine, I have had
a display procedure change.

When I click on a link in an email or usenet posting, the browser opens
the site, but then returns me to the mail/usenet display.  I can click
on the link in the bottom display, and it works, but before 2.12 the web
page remained on top, which saved me a few strokes.

This is hardly a major issue, but it is irksome.  Is there some setting
I should change?


Try disabling the Flash plugin.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Display change

[Not@home]

Since Seamonkey 2.12 et seq came to my windows vista machine, I have had 
a display procedure change.


When I click on a link in an email or usenet posting, the browser opens 
the site, but then returns me to the mail/usenet display.  I can click 
on the link in the bottom display, and it works, but before 2.12 the web 
page remained on top, which saved me a few strokes.


This is hardly a major issue, but it is irksome.  Is there some setting 
I should change?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-04-01 8:21 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-31 3:35 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:


It would seem that someone feels that they can't defend the lack of
choice *OR* explain why can't/shouldn't be fixed, so they just keep
pretending the issue doesn't exist.


Bill, that is borderline on a personal attack. If you have question
about a change, just ask. Take the time to investigate a change before
making any judgment, and most certainly before judging the attitude of
individual developers.


Closing the bug repeatedly with no explanation of WONTFIX, no assertion
that it's not a bug, no explanation of why it would be bad to make it
work in a way that doesn't adversely impact users... that seems to
justify my conclusion that the developers are unresponsive, and opening
the bug twice would seem to justify an explanation. Is there some
special channel to "just ask" other than the BZ entry? I'm sure the OP
will use it!


If one person seems to have bad bugzilla etiquette, that doesn't mean 
he/she is pretending an issue doesn't exist, or that it applies to all 
developers. Plus, if you read the bug, there was an attempt to explain 
it in comment 3.



For that matter would it have taken more time to post a few sentences on
in the bug as to why it won't be fixed than to write a paragraph
characterizing it as a personal attack?


I don't see anything in the bug about personal attacks, so I assume 
you're saying that *I* should have posted an explanation in the bug.


I'm not the person who closed the bug. I don't know or care why the bug 
was wontfixed. I'm a moderator of this SeaMonkey user support newsgroup. 
My job is to keep this newsgroup civil and focused on SeaMonkey user 
support. If you've got questions about development, try asking in the 
mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey newsgroup. But you didn't have a question.


Remember that every person in bugzilla and in this newsgroup is a human 
being. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone jumped to accusations 
and judgments about you. I haven't seen any posts in this newsgroup from 
the person you're attacking, so that person is most likely not reading 
this group. If your post wasn't about user support, why did you post 
that message?


--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 4/1/12 5:34 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Rufus wrote:
>> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
 Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Despite
> having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
> some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
> ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
> a future release, and would be interested to learn how
> the user community feel about it".

 In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
 such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
 about it.

 Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
 strongly compelling reason to do so.

>>> I'll give you one, "print screen." Without the extension installed you
>>> really kind of have to actually save the image and use another tool to
>>> print, since the black border is ugly, and printer ink is even more
>>> expensive than gasoline.
>>>
>>
>> What happens if the user selects "Print" instead of "Print Screen"?
>>
> I had that though as well, but only after I had painfully returned to an 
> older 
> version for other reasons. Hopefully someone can tell us, I don't have a 
> spare 
> place to move back to 2.8 a test right now.
> 

With the Old Default Image Style extension disabled, I went to my own
.  I selected the photo
of the 'Mt. Hood' white daffodil, right-clicked, and selected View Image
in the pull-down context menu.  The image appeared in the center of the
window with a black background.

On the SeaMonkey menu bar, I selected [File > Page Setup].  On the Page
Setup dialogue popup, I made sure the Options: Print Background checkbox
was not checked.

When I printed with color, the image appeared in the upper-left corner
of the page with a white (or no) background.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Bill Davidsen]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-31 3:35 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:

Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color. It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea. I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation. I don't know how long it will remain
open. See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers. Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their
browsers.
This is just plain wrong. Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?


And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you
re-opened it.


It would seem that someone feels that they can't defend the lack of
choice *OR* explain why can't/shouldn't be fixed, so they just keep
pretending the issue doesn't exist.


Bill, that is borderline on a personal attack. If you have question
about a change, just ask. Take the time to investigate a change before
making any judgment, and most certainly before judging the attitude of
individual developers.

Closing the bug repeatedly with no explanation of WONTFIX, no assertion that 
it's not a bug, no explanation of why it would be bad to make it work in a way 
that doesn't adversely impact users... that seems to justify my conclusion that 
the developers are unresponsive, and opening the bug twice would seem to justify 
an explanation. Is there some special channel to "just ask" other than the BZ 
entry? I'm sure the OP will use it!


For that matter would it have taken more time to post a few sentences on in the 
bug as to why it won't be fixed than to write a paragraph characterizing it as a 
personal attack? It's an attack on the whole system, I grant you that, if a user 
takes the time to report a problem, and then request an explanation, would a few 
words of clarification be an unreasonable request?


I did development for a few decades, and always found it easier to give a few 
words on why something was done (or not) than to defend my right to be arbitrary.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Bill Davidsen]

Rufus wrote:

Bill Davidsen wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

Despite
having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
a future release, and would be interested to learn how
the user community feel about it".


In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.


I'll give you one, "print screen." Without the extension installed you
really kind of have to actually save the image and use another tool to
print, since the black border is ugly, and printer ink is even more
expensive than gasoline.



What happens if the user selects "Print" instead of "Print Screen"?

I had that though as well, but only after I had painfully returned to an older 
version for other reasons. Hopefully someone can tell us, I don't have a spare 
place to move back to 2.8 a test right now.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[PhillipJones]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-31 3:35 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:



It would seem that someone feels that they can't defend the lack of
choice *OR* explain why can't/shouldn't be fixed, so they just keep
pretending the issue doesn't exist.


Bill, that is borderline on a personal attack. If you have question
about a change, just ask. Take the time to investigate a change before
making any judgment, and most certainly before judging the attitude of
individual developers.



The comments were not based on any one person, the odds of developers 
reading this forum are slim to none.  There have been many changes to FF 
and SM over the years that users have railed againts from time to time 
yet users opinions were not considered.


This is not an insult to developers, lumped together or individually. It 
just the nature of things. People that are smarter than others 
regardless of what they do tend not to pay attention to or look down 
others not ar fortunate.


After Bill was given enough time to explain his case for the bug it was 
allowed to continue.


Before he wasn't even given opportunity explain.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[PhillipJones]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/31/12 12:59 PM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:



Bill Davidsen wrote:


Trying to say this nicely, some developers are more concerned than
others what the users think. Does the phrase "it's FOSS, if you don't
like don't use it, or maintain your own version."


"ring any bells" ?  No, but I am quite willing to believe that
such an attitude exists, even though "maintain your own" is
a non-starter for 99.999% of all Windows users, myself included.


I'm just happy that there is a way around it,


I am not.  I am not willing to install an add-on just in order
to work around a design flaw; an add-on that /adds/ functionality
(such as "Prefbar") yes; one that is needed only because of a
perverse design decision, no.

What is clear as that while the developers may be superb coders,
their design skills are not always as finely honed, and the
Seamonkey user community (many of whom go back to Netscape 1.0,
as do I) have certain expectations : expectations, in particular,
that if Seamonkey ain't broke, it ill behoves the developers to
"fix" it.  /That/, I believe, should be the cardinal rule of
Seamonkey development : fix anything that is broken, but ask
the user community's opinion before breaking anything that isn't.

My EUR 0,02.

Philip Taylor


If you have a bugzilla.mozilla.org login, go to bug #738948 at
  and vote for it.



Voted for it.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/25/12 2:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
>>> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
>>> not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The
>>> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
>>> white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some
>>> setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the
>>> border from black to white?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
>> user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
>> explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
>> to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
>> open.  See.
>>
>> In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
>> reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
>> configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
>> decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
>>   This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
>> that is not wrong?
>>
> 
> And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you 
> re-opened it.
> 
> Daniel
> 

The bug is now open and has remained open for three days without again
being closed.

Apparently, some Mozilla developer thought I was asking for a NEW
user-set background color specifically for stand-alone images.  Since I
clarified that I merely wanted an option for the same user-set
background color for Web pages that has been a feature since the days of
Netscape Navigator -- and was used for stand-alone images before the
recent disimprovement -- it seems that opposition to my bug report has
been reduced.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/31/12 12:59 PM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> 
> 
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 
>> Trying to say this nicely, some developers are more concerned than
>> others what the users think. Does the phrase "it's FOSS, if you don't
>> like don't use it, or maintain your own version."
> 
> "ring any bells" ?  No, but I am quite willing to believe that
> such an attitude exists, even though "maintain your own" is
> a non-starter for 99.999% of all Windows users, myself included.
> 
>> I'm just happy that there is a way around it,
> 
> I am not.  I am not willing to install an add-on just in order
> to work around a design flaw; an add-on that /adds/ functionality
> (such as "Prefbar") yes; one that is needed only because of a
> perverse design decision, no.
> 
> What is clear as that while the developers may be superb coders,
> their design skills are not always as finely honed, and the
> Seamonkey user community (many of whom go back to Netscape 1.0,
> as do I) have certain expectations : expectations, in particular,
> that if Seamonkey ain't broke, it ill behoves the developers to
> "fix" it.  /That/, I believe, should be the cardinal rule of
> Seamonkey development : fix anything that is broken, but ask
> the user community's opinion before breaking anything that isn't.
> 
> My EUR 0,02.
> 
> Philip Taylor

If you have a bugzilla.mozilla.org login, go to bug #738948 at
 and vote for it.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-03-31 3:35 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:

Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color. It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea. I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation. I don't know how long it will remain
open. See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers. Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
This is just plain wrong. Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?


And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you
re-opened it.


It would seem that someone feels that they can't defend the lack of
choice *OR* explain why can't/shouldn't be fixed, so they just keep
pretending the issue doesn't exist.


Bill, that is borderline on a personal attack. If you have question 
about a change, just ask. Take the time to investigate a change before 
making any judgment, and most certainly before judging the attitude of 
individual developers.


--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

Bill Davidsen wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

Despite
having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
a future release, and would be interested to learn how
the user community feel about it".


In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.


I'll give you one, "print screen." Without the extension installed you
really kind of have to actually save the image and use another tool to
print, since the black border is ugly, and printer ink is even more
expensive than gasoline.



What happens if the user selects "Print" instead of "Print Screen"?

--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

Bill Davidsen wrote:

Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color. It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea. I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation. I don't know how long it will remain
open. See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers. Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
This is just plain wrong. Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?



And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you
re-opened it.


It would seem that someone feels that they can't defend the lack of
choice *OR* explain why can't/shouldn't be fixed, so they just keep
pretending the issue doesn't exist.



...just like with the stupid small buttons.

--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Philip TAYLOR]

Bill Davidsen wrote:


Trying to say this nicely, some developers are more concerned than
others what the users think. Does the phrase "it's FOSS, if you don't
like don't use it, or maintain your own version."


"ring any bells" ?  No, but I am quite willing to believe that
such an attitude exists, even though "maintain your own" is
a non-starter for 99.999% of all Windows users, myself included.


I'm just happy that there is a way around it,


I am not.  I am not willing to install an add-on just in order
to work around a design flaw; an add-on that /adds/ functionality
(such as "Prefbar") yes; one that is needed only because of a
perverse design decision, no.

What is clear as that while the developers may be superb coders,
their design skills are not always as finely honed, and the
Seamonkey user community (many of whom go back to Netscape 1.0,
as do I) have certain expectations : expectations, in particular,
that if Seamonkey ain't broke, it ill behoves the developers to
"fix" it.  /That/, I believe, should be the cardinal rule of
Seamonkey development : fix anything that is broken, but ask
the user community's opinion before breaking anything that isn't.

My EUR 0,02.

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Bill Davidsen]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/25/12 2:23 AM, Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
open.  See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
   This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?



And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you
re-opened it.

Daniel



What I do not understand is why, if Kimura is so adamant that the user
should have NO option, the implementation of bug #376997 did not contain
code to block installation of the Old Default Image Style extension.

That may be "fixed" in 2.8.1 in response to a "Users are overriding the 
developers preferred presentation" or some such.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Bill Davidsen]

Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color. It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea. I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation. I don't know how long it will remain
open. See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers. Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
This is just plain wrong. Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?



And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you
re-opened it.


It would seem that someone feels that they can't defend the lack of choice *OR* 
explain why can't/shouldn't be fixed, so they just keep pretending the issue 
doesn't exist.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Bill Davidsen]

Philip TAYLOR wrote:



Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:


In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.


OK, that I understand. But I still have no clear recollection
of the Seamonkey team approaching this list with ideas for
future versions of Seamonkey and asking for feedback on
acceptability. Could you please let me (us) know whether
that is the norm, or are all decisions as to the evolutionary
route taken by a central cadre without seeking the advice
and opinions of the subscribers to this list ?


Trying to say this nicely, some developers are more concerned than others what 
the users think. Does the phrase "it's FOSS, if you don't like don't use it, or 
maintain your own version."


I'm just happy that there is a way around it, but I agree it's a bad default 
because printing the screen uses way too much ink.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Bill Davidsen]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

Despite
having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
a future release, and would be interested to learn how
the user community feel about it".


In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.

I'll give you one, "print screen." Without the extension installed you really 
kind of have to actually save the image and use another tool to print, since the 
black border is ugly, and printer ink is even more expensive than gasoline.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jim Taylor]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-25 11:16 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/25/12 2:23 AM, Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:


I submitted bug #738948,




What I do not understand is why, if Kimura is so adamant that the user
should have NO option, the implementation of bug #376997 did not
contain
code to block installation of the Old Default Image Style extension.


In this case, I think it would be best to just ask him. I don't see
what good it does to ask here.

He was asked https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376997#c87 
among other places and his answers didn't make any sense, at least to 
me.  If you read bugs 376997, 738948, 376997, and 713230 you just have 
to get the feeling that the developers just don't care about users at 
all.  Particularly 713230 marked RESOLVED WONTFIX with an attachment 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713230#c55 of the type of 
content that will no longer display correctly.  And look at the number 
of bugs that have been marked as duplicates of all these..  At 
least there is an extension that makes it display the old way and that 
satisfies me (thank you Dagger), but I just hate to read these bugs 
and see the direction Firefox development is going.  At least it open 
source and when they PO enough people somebody can fork it (and if you 
think it's not possible with a project this big take a look at 
LibreOffice).


Jim
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[PhillipJones]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-25 11:16 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/25/12 2:23 AM, Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:


I submitted bug #738948,




What I do not understand is why, if Kimura is so adamant that the user
should have NO option, the implementation of bug #376997 did not contain
code to block installation of the Old Default Image Style extension.


In this case, I think it would be best to just ask him. I don't see what
good it does to ask here.

Do developers really answer user questions? I'd be surprised if all he 
got back in response is, "You don't know what you want. I know better 
than you what you want."


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-03-25 11:16 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/25/12 2:23 AM, Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:


I submitted bug #738948,




What I do not understand is why, if Kimura is so adamant that the user
should have NO option, the implementation of bug #376997 did not contain
code to block installation of the Old Default Image Style extension.


In this case, I think it would be best to just ask him. I don't see what 
good it does to ask here.


--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/25/12 2:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
>>> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
>>> not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The
>>> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
>>> white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some
>>> setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the
>>> border from black to white?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
>> user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
>> explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
>> to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
>> open.  See.
>>
>> In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
>> reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
>> configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
>> decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
>>   This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
>> that is not wrong?
>>
> 
> And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you 
> re-opened it.
> 
> Daniel
> 

What I do not understand is why, if Kimura is so adamant that the user
should have NO option, the implementation of bug #376997 did not contain
code to block installation of the Old Default Image Style extension.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Ray_Net]

Daniel wrote, On 25/03/2012 11:23:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
open.  See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?



And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you 
re-opened it.


As i said before: "the developpers knows better than you, what is good 
for you"

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Daniel]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim


I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
open.  See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?



And, David, the bug was again Resolved Wontfix about 20 min after you 
re-opened it.


Daniel

--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Philip Chee]

On 25/03/2012 03:37, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
>> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are 
>> not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The 
>> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a 
>> white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some 
>> setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the 
>> border from black to white?
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
> user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
> explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
> to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
> open.  See .
> 
> In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
> reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
> configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
> decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
>  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
> that is not wrong?

There is now a competing bug:
Bug 738880 - Make default text color bright pink


Phil

-- 
Philip Chee , 
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[WLS]

On 03/24/2012 08:12 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/24/12 4:32 PM, WLS wrote:
>> On 03/24/2012 03:37 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
>>> On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
 SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are 
 not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The 
 previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a 
 white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some 
 setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the 
 border from black to white?

 Jim
>>>
>>> I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
>>> user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
>>> explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
>>> to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
>>> open.  See .
>>>
>>> In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
>>> reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
>>> configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
>>> decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
>>>  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
>>> that is not wrong?
>>>
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> If I change color preference to "Use System colors" the background
>> becomes white.
>>
>> If I pick a color in the palette, the background uses that color.
>>
>> If I "Allow pages to chose their own colors, instead of my selections
>> above" (my default) the background is a dark grey.
>>
>> The browser isn't overriding my settings at all, depending on how I
>> configure my preferences.
>>
> 
> This thread in general applies only to viewing stand-alone images.
> Stand-alone images are what you see when you place your cursor over an
> image on a Web page, right-click, and select View Image in the pull-down
> context menu.
> 


Yep, exactly what I tested, first I selected an image, selected View
Image, then made the preference changes, and the background of the image
being viewed changed with every change.

One thing I left out was in SeaMonkey I had to select "Use my chosen
colors, ignoring the colors and background image specified" under "When
a web page provides its own colors and background", when I picked a
color from the palette.

Of course that will change the way web pages appear, so may not be a fix
for most, and I think the change is rather nice.

Another thing I probably wouldn't have noticed if the whiners hadn't
come out.

-- 
Thunderbird Daily | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Humans aren't a color of skin, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation,
or a flag. We are human beings and that is how we need to see and treat
each other. - Justin Sane


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/24/12 4:32 PM, WLS wrote:
> On 03/24/2012 03:37 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
>>> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are 
>>> not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The 
>>> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a 
>>> white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some 
>>> setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the 
>>> border from black to white?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
>> user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
>> explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
>> to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
>> open.  See .
>>
>> In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
>> reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
>> configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
>> decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
>>  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
>> that is not wrong?
>>
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> If I change color preference to "Use System colors" the background
> becomes white.
> 
> If I pick a color in the palette, the background uses that color.
> 
> If I "Allow pages to chose their own colors, instead of my selections
> above" (my default) the background is a dark grey.
> 
> The browser isn't overriding my settings at all, depending on how I
> configure my preferences.
> 

This thread in general applies only to viewing stand-alone images.
Stand-alone images are what you see when you place your cursor over an
image on a Web page, right-click, and select View Image in the pull-down
context menu.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[WLS]

On 03/24/2012 03:37 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
>> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are 
>> not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The 
>> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a 
>> white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some 
>> setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the 
>> border from black to white?
>>
>> Jim
> 
> I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
> user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
> explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
> to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
> open.  See .
> 
> In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
> reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
> configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
> decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
>  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
> that is not wrong?
> 

My 2 cents.

If I change color preference to "Use System colors" the background
becomes white.

If I pick a color in the palette, the background uses that color.

If I "Allow pages to chose their own colors, instead of my selections
above" (my default) the background is a dark grey.

The browser isn't overriding my settings at all, depending on how I
configure my preferences.

-- 
Thunderbird Beta | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Humans aren't a color of skin, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation,
or a flag. We are human beings and that is how we need to see and treat
each other. - Justin Sane
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Ray_Net]

David E. Ross wrote, On 24/03/2012 20:37:

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim

I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
open.  See.

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
  This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?

Did you know that the developpers knows better than you, what is good 
for you ???

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/15/12 9:56 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are 
> not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The 
> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a 
> white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some 
> setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the 
> border from black to white?
> 
> Jim

I submitted bug #738948, requesting a user option to use the
user-specified background color.  It was closed as WontFix without any
explaination of why that would be a bad idea.  I reopened the bug report
to request such an explanation.  I don't know how long it will remain
open.  See .

In the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, we are frequently
reminded that Web pages should not attempt to override how users have
configured their browsers.  Here, however, we have a case where someone
decided to have the browser override how users configure their browsers.
 This is just plain wrong.  Can a Mozilla develeoper please explain why
that is not wrong?

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jens Hatlak]

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

OK, I have no idea of what "M.D.A.Seamonkey" is a contraction,


I referred to the mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey newsgroup which is used for 
SeaMonkey development coordination. As Chris already wrote, there's also 
a mailing list access option for that.



Hmm, I don't feel this is serious enough. It doesn't seem anything
stops working through this. Actually I'm trying to /reduce/ the
amount of things we list under Known Issues. Sure, the easiest way
would be to fix this issue, but until that happens, what's the impact
of this issue on users other than being an annoying?


what exactly did you mean by "reduce". Do you mean "fix the issues,
so they can be removed from the list", or "filter the recorded
issues in terms of their impact as perceived by the developers" ?


Rather the latter. Fixing the listed issues is often out of my hands (as 
I tend to prioritize things that are both listed there and possible for 
me to fix), so I can only try to keep them in view and nag those who are 
actually able to fix them (like in the case of the busy cursor issue, 
which seems to be caused by a back-end change).


If you look at the current list, I tend to remove the DOM Inspector, 
Lightning, GMail and Synaptic touchpad issues sooner than later because 
there's not much we (SM devs) can do about it and I don't really feel 
they are too important.


Personally I'd also remove things that have been around for so long now 
that they are a FAQ case by now and unlikely to be resolved any time 
soon (like the MailNews account wizard news-type issue and the locked 
profile crash issue), but I guess some users will find it there better 
than on the FAQ page (alone).


The actual reason why I want to reduce the list is because I think that 
the longer the list, the lower the probability that people will actually 
read it completely. And if people skip reading it, they'll flood the 
support channels with redundant questions, which is bad for everyone 
(the requestors have to wait longer to get an answer, and supporters 
have less time to address problems that better deserved their attention 
- not to name helpful developers who have less time to actually fix some 
issues).



I hope very much that you meant the former, because the latter looks
ominously like papering over the cracks in a manner that one /might/
associate with proprietary software but which seems very much at
odds with the open-source philosophy on which Seamonkey is predicated.


We're not papering over anything. In an open project, that's not going 
to work anyway. You know, the Known Issues list is just a (technically 
redundant) mirror of high-profile issues, maintained in order to spare 
end users the hassle of searching Bugzilla (e.g. for the "relnote" 
keyword, which is the basis of what gets listed). Bugzilla, as you know, 
is not filtered/censored (ignoring security-related issues).


The actual issue tracker is Bugzilla, and there are *tons* of issues 
that can only be found through Bugzilla (or maybe Google). The Known 
Issues list is by no means complete (never was, never will be). Either 
way, some group of people will always have to make the call which things 
deserve to get listed and which not. Current practice is that anyone can 
nominate (through setting the "relnote" keyword, accompanied by some 
reasoning comment, or only the latter), then I as website module owner 
(or some other Council member) decides whether it sticks, and in the end 
every bug that has "relnote" set shall be added to Known Issues. Plus 
any extra ones I deem worthy (using common sense).


HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak 
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-03-16 8:55 AM, _Philip TAYLOR_ spoke thusly:

Jens Hatlak wrote:


Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in
the respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that
I don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback
on technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place
of further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we
have mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes
that cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code),
discussion might happen here (but no guarantee).


OK, I have no idea of what "M.D.A.Seamonkey" is a contraction,


https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-seamonkey :)

--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Philip TAYLOR]

Jens Hatlak wrote:


For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would
probably bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is
way too slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about
that).



Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or
on SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we
 provide meeting notes on the wiki).

Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in
the respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that
I don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback
on technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place
of further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we
have mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes
that cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code),
discussion might happen here (but no guarantee).


OK, I have no idea of what "M.D.A.Seamonkey" is a contraction,
but as I read neither Usenet news nor IRC I am clearly excluded
(by my own choice) from many of your deliberations.  However,
I would like to ask you one specific question : when you wrote
(in another context)


Hmm, I don't feel this is serious enough. It doesn't seem anything
stops working through this. Actually I'm trying to /reduce/ the
amount of things we list under Known Issues. Sure, the easiest way
would be to fix this issue, but until that happens, what's the impact
of this issue on users other than being an annoying?


what exactly did you mean by "reduce".  Do you mean "fix the issues,
so they can be removed from the list", or "filter the recorded
issues in terms of their impact as perceived by the developers" ?
I hope very much that you meant the former, because the latter looks
ominously like papering over the cracks in a manner that one /might/
associate with proprietary software but which seems very much at
odds with the open-source philosophy on which Seamonkey is predicated.

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/15/12 6:53 PM, Jim Taylor wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
> 
> Snip
>> Not sure. However if you 'view image' (any image from any site), sample:
>> http://cafxx.strayorange.com/ImageTweak.png
>> and 'view page info|links' you'll find:
>> a stylesheet link for:
>> resource://gre/res/TopLevelImageDocument.css
>> You can enter that in the URI bar&  it will display the css. The
>> background is set for nearly black:
>>
>> 
>> @media not print {
>>body {
>>  background-color: #222;
>>  margin: 0;
>> 
>>
> And that css is now wrapped up in the omni.jar bundle so you can't 
> just edit it easily. Before Chris Ilias pointed out the "Old Default 
> Image Style" extension to me I actually pulled that css out of the 
> omni.ja, removed everything from the @media not print function 
> (leaving it blank), and put it back into the omni.ja to revert 
> everything back to the way it had been.  That worked (I hadn't tested 
> to see if it caused other problems), but the extension makes it so 
> much easier and I won't have to do it again on every upgrade.
> 
> RANT ON
> I still don't understand why they didn't make the color an option, it 
> would have been so easy.  Reading bug 376997 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376997 just seems to show 
> how arrogant some of the Firefox developers have become and how little 
> regard they have for their users.  This change seems to be designed by 
> a bunch of kids that think the only use for displaying images and 
> video at a top level is to watch movies in a simulated theater 
> environment.
> RANT OFF
> 
> Thank goodness somebody thought enough about the users to write an 
> extension.
> 
> Jim
> 

The background color should NOT be an option.  It should be whatever
background color the user has specified, which is the way this used to
work.

Bug #376997 involved a blatently false assumption that stand-alone
images were displayed against a white background.  Prior to SeaMonkey
2.8, I always saw stand-alone images against a pale mint-green
background because that is how I set my default background color.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

Jim Taylor wrote:

NoOp wrote:

Snip

Not sure. However if you 'view image' (any image from any site), sample:
http://cafxx.strayorange.com/ImageTweak.png
and 'view page info|links' you'll find:
a stylesheet link for:
resource://gre/res/TopLevelImageDocument.css
You can enter that in the URI bar& it will display the css. The
background is set for nearly black:


@media not print {
body {
background-color: #222;
margin: 0;



And that css is now wrapped up in the omni.jar bundle so you can't just
edit it easily. Before Chris Ilias pointed out the "Old Default Image
Style" extension to me I actually pulled that css out of the omni.ja,
removed everything from the @media not print function (leaving it
blank), and put it back into the omni.ja to revert everything back to
the way it had been. That worked (I hadn't tested to see if it caused
other problems), but the extension makes it so much easier and I won't
have to do it again on every upgrade.

RANT ON
I still don't understand why they didn't make the color an option, it
would have been so easy. Reading bug 376997
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376997 just seems to show
how arrogant some of the Firefox developers have become and how little
regard they have for their users. This change seems to be designed by a
bunch of kids that think the only use for displaying images and video at
a top level is to watch movies in a simulated theater environment.
RANT OFF

Thank goodness somebody thought enough about the users to write an
extension.

Jim



I just installed the extension...that's *nice* - options!  Ought to be 
built in, IMO.


As an aside, I also noticed the change in what Google.com looks like if 
I have "Advertise Firefox compatibility" enabled - re: the previews.  I 
suppose that's all mixed up in this, too?  The image centering part, at 
least?


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jim Taylor]

NoOp wrote:

Snip

Not sure. However if you 'view image' (any image from any site), sample:
http://cafxx.strayorange.com/ImageTweak.png
and 'view page info|links' you'll find:
a stylesheet link for:
resource://gre/res/TopLevelImageDocument.css
You can enter that in the URI bar&  it will display the css. The
background is set for nearly black:


@media not print {
   body {
 background-color: #222;
 margin: 0;


And that css is now wrapped up in the omni.jar bundle so you can't 
just edit it easily. Before Chris Ilias pointed out the "Old Default 
Image Style" extension to me I actually pulled that css out of the 
omni.ja, removed everything from the @media not print function 
(leaving it blank), and put it back into the omni.ja to revert 
everything back to the way it had been.  That worked (I hadn't tested 
to see if it caused other problems), but the extension makes it so 
much easier and I won't have to do it again on every upgrade.


RANT ON
I still don't understand why they didn't make the color an option, it 
would have been so easy.  Reading bug 376997 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376997 just seems to show 
how arrogant some of the Firefox developers have become and how little 
regard they have for their users.  This change seems to be designed by 
a bunch of kids that think the only use for displaying images and 
video at a top level is to watch movies in a simulated theater 
environment.

RANT OFF

Thank goodness somebody thought enough about the users to write an 
extension.


Jim

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

NoOp wrote:

On 03/15/2012 05:51 PM, Rufus wrote:
...


I noticed this change right away, but the odd thing for me was that it
seemed to work for some sites and still display the old way for
others...so I'm wondering, does the site content provider have some
control over this display mode?


Not sure. However if you 'view image' (any image from any site), sample:
http://cafxx.strayorange.com/ImageTweak.png
and 'view page info|links' you'll find:
a stylesheet link for:
resource://gre/res/TopLevelImageDocument.css
You can enter that in the URI bar&  it will display the css. The
background is set for nearly black:


@media not print {
   body {
 background-color: #222;
 margin: 0;




Maybe that's actually it - weather the content provider is using style 
sheets or not.  I expect most modern page designers do, but that doesn't 
mean everyone does.  Makes sense to me.


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[NoOp]

On 03/15/2012 05:51 PM, Rufus wrote:
...
> 
> I noticed this change right away, but the odd thing for me was that it 
> seemed to work for some sites and still display the old way for 
> others...so I'm wondering, does the site content provider have some 
> control over this display mode?

Not sure. However if you 'view image' (any image from any site), sample:
http://cafxx.strayorange.com/ImageTweak.png
and 'view page info|links' you'll find:
a stylesheet link for:
resource://gre/res/TopLevelImageDocument.css
You can enter that in the URI bar & it will display the css. The
background is set for nearly black:


@media not print {
  body {
background-color: #222;
margin: 0;


> 
> I happen to like the new display mode, but I can understand those whom 
> don't and why they might not.  The FF people are probably going to get 
> some feedback...
> 

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 4:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/15/12 3:44 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

But I still have no clear recollection of the Seamonkey team
approaching this list with ideas for future versions of Seamonkey
and asking for feedback on acceptability.


For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would probably
bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is way too
slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about that). Anyway,
in this case that doesn't really matter since, as Callek said, the
change was made in core code by core (read: Firefox) developers. In such
cases, unless they provide a preference to disable the new behavior that
we could flip, there's not much we can do (other than forking code,
which is stupid). [Please ignore the aspect that it wasn't mentioned in
our relnotes, that was just an oversight.]

Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or on
SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we
provide meeting notes on the wiki).


Could you please let me (us) know whether that is the norm, or are
all decisions as to the evolutionary route taken by a central cadre
without seeking the advice and opinions of the subscribers to this
list ?


Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in the
respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that I
don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback on
technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place of
further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we have
mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes that
cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code), discussion might
happen here (but no guarantee).

HTH

Jens



Was there a bug report on this in bugzilla.mozilla.org?  If so, what was
the bug number?



Never mind.  It's bug #376997 at
.

And that bug makes a very wrong assumption that stand-alone images
appear against a white background.  They appear against the user's
chosen background color, pale green in my case.



That was going to be one of my suggestions for getting around the new 
display "feature" - setting a user selected background in the 
Appearance/Color pref.  But that still doesn't solve the interface 
problem for people whom require the image to be displayed in a specific 
location.


I noticed this change right away, but the odd thing for me was that it 
seemed to work for some sites and still display the old way for 
others...so I'm wondering, does the site content provider have some 
control over this display mode?


I happen to like the new display mode, but I can understand those whom 
don't and why they might not.  The FF people are probably going to get 
some feedback...


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[NoOp]

On 03/15/2012 11:25 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-03-15 12:56 PM, _Jim Taylor_ spoke thusly:
>> SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are not
>> full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
>> previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
>> white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
>> setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
>> border from black to white?
> 
> Yes, it's by design. You can install an extension that will revert that 
> change. It is called Old Default Image Style.
> 1. Go to Tools-->Add-ons_Manager, to open the Add-ons Manager.
> 2. Select the "Get Add-ons" panel.
> 3. Search for "Old Default Image Style".
> 4. It should be the first result. Just click on the [Install] button.
> 

Interesting & thanks for pointing that out. I wonder why they didn't
just use/promote the add-on mentioned at the start of the bug:

  
   
and leave it at that. The author of that add-on (Carlo Alberto Ferraris
) seems to be the primary contributor to the change, as well as the bug
originator.



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

Jim Taylor wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-15 12:56 PM, _Jim Taylor_ spoke thusly:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not
full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
border from black to white?


Yes, it's by design. You can install an extension that will revert
that change. It is called Old Default Image Style.
1. Go to Tools-->Add-ons_Manager, to open the Add-ons Manager.
2. Select the "Get Add-ons" panel.
3. Search for "Old Default Image Style".
4. It should be the first result. Just click on the [Install] button.


Thank you Chris, that extension works like a charm. That change broke my
security camera watchers for the same reason it broke all the tests,
they expected the image to be in the top left of the display area and
the top left of the image to be in the same place regardless of image
size. I checked the release notes and changes and didn't see anything
about the change until you pointed me to the extension which listed the
bug number. Thanks again.

Jim


Now that's a fantastic hunk of user feedback, IMO.  And one more reason 
for providing a user Preference selection.


I use Graphic Converter, and in it's photo browser this new to SM 
display setting is called "Digital Lightroom"...and I like it, for that 
purpose - browsing and manipulating images located on my hard drive.


But for use in a web browser it seems that there are some legitimate and 
reasonable situations that call for leaving well enough alone...or at 
least providing choice!


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

Philip TAYLOR wrote:



Chris Ilias wrote:


On 12-03-15 12:56 PM, _Jim Taylor_ spoke thusly:



SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that
are not full screen centered with a black border around the
picture. Is this change by design



Yes, it's by design.


I have no strong feelings one way or the other concerning
how such images are displayed; what is of concern, however,
is how design decision such as this are reached. Despite
having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
a future release, and would be interested to learn how
the user community feel about it". Since such messages
are not posted here, I must assume that they are posted elsewhere,
and as I would be interested in responding to such enquiries,
I would be very grateful if you could tell me (and others)
where they are posted.

Philip Taylor


Second.  And the same goes for those stupid small buttons.

And I'd like to at least see a user Preference setting provided for such 
interface "upgrades" at implementation.


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/15/12 4:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/15/12 3:44 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
>> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>> But I still have no clear recollection of the Seamonkey team
>>> approaching this list with ideas for future versions of Seamonkey
>>> and asking for feedback on acceptability.
>>
>> For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would probably
>> bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is way too 
>> slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about that). Anyway, 
>> in this case that doesn't really matter since, as Callek said, the 
>> change was made in core code by core (read: Firefox) developers. In such 
>> cases, unless they provide a preference to disable the new behavior that 
>> we could flip, there's not much we can do (other than forking code, 
>> which is stupid). [Please ignore the aspect that it wasn't mentioned in 
>> our relnotes, that was just an oversight.]
>>
>> Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or on 
>> SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we 
>> provide meeting notes on the wiki).
>>
>>> Could you please let me (us) know whether that is the norm, or are
>>> all decisions as to the evolutionary route taken by a central cadre
>>> without seeking the advice and opinions of the subscribers to this
>>> list ?
>>
>> Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in the
>> respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that I
>> don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
>> meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback on
>> technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place of
>> further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we have
>> mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes that
>> cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code), discussion might
>> happen here (but no guarantee).
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Jens
>>
> 
> Was there a bug report on this in bugzilla.mozilla.org?  If so, what was
> the bug number?
> 

Never mind.  It's bug #376997 at
.

And that bug makes a very wrong assumption that stand-alone images
appear against a white background.  They appear against the user's
chosen background color, pale green in my case.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[David E. Ross]

On 3/15/12 3:44 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>> But I still have no clear recollection of the Seamonkey team
>> approaching this list with ideas for future versions of Seamonkey
>> and asking for feedback on acceptability.
> 
> For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would probably
> bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is way too 
> slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about that). Anyway, 
> in this case that doesn't really matter since, as Callek said, the 
> change was made in core code by core (read: Firefox) developers. In such 
> cases, unless they provide a preference to disable the new behavior that 
> we could flip, there's not much we can do (other than forking code, 
> which is stupid). [Please ignore the aspect that it wasn't mentioned in 
> our relnotes, that was just an oversight.]
> 
> Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or on 
> SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we 
> provide meeting notes on the wiki).
> 
>> Could you please let me (us) know whether that is the norm, or are
>> all decisions as to the evolutionary route taken by a central cadre
>> without seeking the advice and opinions of the subscribers to this
>> list ?
> 
> Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in the
> respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that I
> don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
> meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback on
> technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place of
> further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we have
> mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes that
> cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code), discussion might
> happen here (but no guarantee).
> 
> HTH
> 
> Jens
> 

Was there a bug report on this in bugzilla.mozilla.org?  If so, what was
the bug number?

-- 

David E. Ross
.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jens Hatlak]

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

But I still have no clear recollection of the Seamonkey team
approaching this list with ideas for future versions of Seamonkey
and asking for feedback on acceptability.


For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would probably
bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is way too 
slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about that). Anyway, 
in this case that doesn't really matter since, as Callek said, the 
change was made in core code by core (read: Firefox) developers. In such 
cases, unless they provide a preference to disable the new behavior that 
we could flip, there's not much we can do (other than forking code, 
which is stupid). [Please ignore the aspect that it wasn't mentioned in 
our relnotes, that was just an oversight.]


Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or on 
SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we 
provide meeting notes on the wiki).



Could you please let me (us) know whether that is the norm, or are
all decisions as to the evolutionary route taken by a central cadre
without seeking the advice and opinions of the subscribers to this
list ?


Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in the
respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that I
don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the
meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback on
technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place of
further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we have
mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes that
cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code), discussion might
happen here (but no guarantee).

HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak 
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jens Hatlak]

Jim Taylor wrote:

What bothers me is that I got blind sided by it. Maybe I missed
something but I looked in the release notes and changes and didn't
see anything about it until I posted here and Chris and you answered.
That seems like a pretty big change to just drop in without even
being listed in the changes, again unless it is really there and I
missed it.


Sorry, the FF devs didn't list it (prominently) in their relnotes so it
slipped since I use their relnotes as a base for our "Mozilla platform
changes" list. Added now, including a link to the add-on that reverts
back to the old behavior (reportedly; didn't try it myself).

HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak 
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jim Taylor]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Philip TAYLOR wrote:

Despite
having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
a future release, and would be interested to learn how
the user community feel about it".


In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.



Justin,

Whether or not that change is good or bad is academic. I don't like it 
and it causes problems for me, and it must for others because somebody 
wrote an extension to revert it, but some others must want it (at 
least the developer that changed it).  What bothers me is that I got 
blind sided by it.  Maybe I missed something but I looked in the 
release notes and changes and didn't see anything about it until I 
posted here and Chris and you answered.  That seems like a pretty big 
change to just drop in without even being listed in the changes, again 
unless it is really there and I missed it.


Jim
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jim Taylor]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 12-03-15 12:56 PM, _Jim Taylor_ spoke thusly:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are
not
full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
border from black to white?


Yes, it's by design. You can install an extension that will revert
that change. It is called Old Default Image Style.
1. Go to Tools-->Add-ons_Manager, to open the Add-ons Manager.
2. Select the "Get Add-ons" panel.
3. Search for "Old Default Image Style".
4. It should be the first result. Just click on the [Install] button.

Thank you Chris, that extension works like a charm.  That change broke 
my security camera watchers for the same reason it broke all the 
tests, they expected the image to be in the top left of the display 
area and the top left of the image to be in the same place regardless 
of image size.  I checked the release notes and changes and didn't see 
anything about the change until you pointed me to the extension which 
listed the bug number.  Thanks again.


Jim
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Philip TAYLOR]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:


In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.


OK, that I understand.  But I still have no clear recollection
of the Seamonkey team approaching this list with ideas for
future versions of Seamonkey and asking for feedback on
acceptability.  Could you please let me (us) know whether
that is the norm, or are all decisions as to the evolutionary
route taken by a central cadre without seeking the advice
and opinions of the subscribers to this list ?

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Despite
> having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
> some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
> ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
> a future release, and would be interested to learn how
> the user community feel about it".

In this case it was a by design *core* change that caused it. And as
such we did not come to the *SeaMonkey* user community to explicitly ask
about it.

Though in *theory* we could override the core choice here, I don't see a
strongly compelling reason to do so.

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Philip TAYLOR]

Chris Ilias wrote:


On 12-03-15 12:56 PM, _Jim Taylor_ spoke thusly:



SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that
are not full screen centered with a black border around the
picture.  Is this change by design



Yes, it's by design.


I have no strong feelings one way or the other concerning
how such images are displayed; what is of concern, however,
is how design decision such as this are reached.  Despite
having been a subscriber to this mailing list for quite
some time, I have no recollection of the Seamonkey team
ever saying "We are considering doing so-and-so for
a future release, and would be interested to learn how
the user community feel about it".  Since such messages
are not posted here, I must assume that they are posted elsewhere,
and as I would be interested in responding to such enquiries,
I would be very grateful if you could tell me (and others)
where they are posted.

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-03-15 12:56 PM, _Jim Taylor_ spoke thusly:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are not
full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
border from black to white?


Yes, it's by design. You can install an extension that will revert that 
change. It is called Old Default Image Style.

1. Go to Tools-->Add-ons_Manager, to open the Add-ons Manager.
2. Select the "Get Add-ons" panel.
3. Search for "Old Default Image Style".
4. It should be the first result. Just click on the [Install] button.

--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: 2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Rufus]

Jim Taylor wrote:

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are not
full screen centered with a black border around the picture. The
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a
white screen. Is this change by design And if so is there some
setting I can change to get the old way back? Or at least change the
border from black to white?

Jim


Good question - I've been seeing this with some sites and not with 
other, so I was thinking it was the sites that had changed...so 
whassupwiddat?


Doesn't really bother me, just curious...

--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

2.8 Graphics (.jpg) display change?

[Jim Taylor]

SeaMonkey 2.8 now displays graphic files (.jpg, .png, .gif) that are 
not full screen centered with a black border around the picture.  The 
previous way through 2.7.2 was to display them top left justified on a 
white screen.  Is this change by design And if so is there some 
setting I can change to get the old way back?  Or at least change the 
border from black to white?


Jim
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey