Re: Question about Mozilla Sunbird

[null]

Daniel wrote:

null wrote on 20/06/2018 8:03 PM:
Development of Sunbird, the Mozilla Calendar and appointments app, 
was discontinued quite a while back, but I have continued to use it 
without problems. Unfortunately, the HD I was running it on started 
to play up and I lost access, so I installed it on another computer 
and carried on.


I have now resurrected the "bad" HD, but I want to transfer all the 
historical data sitting there in Sunbird to the new computer. Problem 
is, I cannot figure out what Sunbird file this data resides in, so I 
cannot even attempt to transfer the file to the new install in the 
hope that Sunbird will somehow pick it up and display the contents.


Can't find any info about this anywhere, so I'm posting my query here 
in case there is someone who can help.


As you suggest, Sunbird is very, very, old, and, I think, you'll find 
no longer supported.


However there is now an extension called "Lightning" which, I think, 
does the same sort of stuff, and you might find support for it in the 
newsgroup mozilla.support.calender on this server.


Give it a go.
You are right -- Sunbird is very, very, very old, and is no longer 
supported. But then, I'm also very, very, very old too, but things still 
seem to work okay. Wait ... what was that creaking sound?


I had looked through the Mozilla group names but failed to see the 
calendar one, so thanks for that! Subscribed, did a search for Sunbird, 
and found a thread back in 2012 that discussed precisely my problem. I 
simply moved the content of the existing profiles fold out and replaced 
it with the old stuff that I have recovered, and the whole think worked 
perfectly displaying all the old data. So again, thanks for that tip!


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

Question about Mozilla Sunbird

[null]

Development of Sunbird, the Mozilla Calendar and appointments app, was 
discontinued quite a while back, but I have continued to use it without 
problems. Unfortunately, the HD I was running it on started to play up 
and I lost access, so I installed it on another computer and carried on.


I have now resurrected the "bad" HD, but I want to transfer all the 
historical data sitting there in Sunbird to the new computer. Problem 
is, I cannot figure out what Sunbird file this data resides in, so I 
cannot even attempt to transfer the file to the new install in the hope 
that Sunbird will somehow pick it up and display the contents.


Can't find any info about this anywhere, so I'm posting my query here in 
case there is someone who can help.

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

test

[null]

test.

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

Re: SM video problems continue - will they ever end!?

[null]

IRRITATING SPAMMER wrote:

null wrote:

IRRITATING SPAMMER wrote:

null wrote:

Have had increasing problems playing video in SM for a long time now.
Getting the latest SM version doesn't help. Seems it all stems from
ongoing, behind-the-scenes jostling between flashplayer, WEBM and the
HTML5 player. Currently I can't play anything on Facebook or 
Instagram,

and many news sites have video that won't play. The latest nonsense on
many news sites is a message saying "This video could not be loaded -
crossdomain access denied". No idea exactly what that implies.

Are other SM users having these sort of problems?


I was googling around and found something for
"Cannot load M3U8: crossdomain access denied"
(not that the solution made sense to me) so I have to ask: did you
change the error-message before posting it here?


I think that "M3U8" was part of it, at least on some occasions, but the
key part is the reference to "crossdomain access".

Some of the people who had that error were using something called PleX
and had to change a setting, this seemed to be independent of the
actual browser used.





If you saw M3U8, that appears to be just as important as the 
"crossdomain access denied".  Google the entire string above - 
including the double quotes - and see what applies.


Whether you google "crossdomain access denied" or "Cannot load M3U8: 
crossdomain access denied", you get essentially the same list of 
citations, none of which, I might add, are particularly helpful.

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

Re: SM video problems continue - will they ever end!?

[null]

IRRITATING SPAMMER wrote:

null wrote:

Have had increasing problems playing video in SM for a long time now.
Getting the latest SM version doesn't help. Seems it all stems from
ongoing, behind-the-scenes jostling between flashplayer, WEBM and the
HTML5 player. Currently I can't play anything on Facebook or Instagram,
and many news sites have video that won't play. The latest nonsense on
many news sites is a message saying "This video could not be loaded -
crossdomain access denied". No idea exactly what that implies.

Are other SM users having these sort of problems?


I was googling around and found something for
"Cannot load M3U8: crossdomain access denied"
(not that the solution made sense to me) so I have to ask: did you 
change the error-message before posting it here?


I think that "M3U8" was part of it, at least on some occasions, but the 
key part is the reference to "crossdomain access".
Some of the people who had that error were using something called PleX 
and had to change a setting, this seemed to be independent of the 
actual browser used.




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

SM video problems continue - will they ever end!?

[null]

Have had increasing problems playing video in SM for a long time now. 
Getting the latest SM version doesn't help. Seems it all stems from 
ongoing, behind-the-scenes jostling between flashplayer, WEBM and the 
HTML5 player. Currently I can't play anything on Facebook or Instagram, 
and many news sites have video that won't play. The latest nonsense on 
many news sites is a message saying "This video could not be loaded - 
crossdomain access denied". No idea exactly what that implies.


Are other SM users having these sort of problems?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Reorganizing bookmarks - HOW?

[null]

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 12/29/2017 08:25 AM, Jim Dell wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 12/29/2017 04:53 AM, null wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote:

But there are the GOTCHA's that prompted this thread.
"Manage Bookmarks" does not have appropriate search capabilities.
  1. I need to be able to search ONLY folder titles for key(s)
 I then need to be able to yank that folder and its contents
   be they be folders OR URL's and place them in the desired
   folder.
  2. I need to be able to search ONLY the assigned item name (usually
 the titled given by the page's author).
 I then need to know where in the folder hierarchy it is.
   Should it be remain in current folder, should it be moved or
   copied to the new folder you mentioned by you, or should it be
   deleted as a duplicate &/or obsolete item.
  3. I need to be able to search ONLY the URL to see if it is in the
 right folder or perhaps be duplicated in another folder.


4) Repeat for each subject
Hm . from your comments above, I'm beginning to see your 
problem. You want to search the bookmarks for a specific bookmark and, 
having found it, immediately move it elsewhere in the bookmarks 
hierarchy. Ids that right?


If so, it can't be done. It could be done in Netscape and, I think, in 
early versions of SM. When you did a search, the display would move to 
and highlight the searched for item. If there were more than one item 
with the same search key, you could click "next" and it would go to the 
next item. This allowed you to see where in the hierarchy the bookmark 
was situated, something which is quite crucial if you are trying to do 
some sort of periodic sorting out or re-organizing of your bookmarks. At 
any point in this procedure, you could decide to delete a bookmark or 
folder, or copy it elsewhere, either by dragging or cut/copy and pasting.


Not any more. When SM redesigned the bookmark file as an Sqlite database 
file some years ago now, the search facility became a search box in the 
top right-hand corner of the bookmarks display. Putting a string in that 
box instantly lists all bookmarks containing the string, but it doesn't 
tell you where they are or allow you to move them.


This problem, along with a few other things that got dropped, like the 
ability to label a separator line, has been the subject of complaints 
going back perhaps up to 7 years or so, but nothing has been done about 
it.  So as I said in my earlier post, the only way to re-organize your 
bookmarks in to open Manage Bookmarks and use that to manually rename or 
create new folders and/or sub-folders, move bookmarks around into more 
appropriate folders, and so on. Of course, it's time consuming, but as 
far as I can see there's no other way.


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

Re: Reorganizing bookmarks - HOW?

[null]

Lee wrote:

On 12/29/17, Richard Owlett  wrote:

If someone could remind me of the command and syntax for displaying a
file directory structure/contents as ASCII line art I could display
display the organization of my home directory. I could then mangle the
display an analog of the disorganization of my bookmarks.

windows: tree /a
- send the output to a file:
mkdir c:\temp
tree /a  1>c:\temp\tree.txt  & notepad c:\temp\tree.txt

linux: http://centerkey.com/tree/
The OP's problem is organizing the contents of his bookmarks file, which 
is an sqlite file unamenable to manual editing.


True, tree /f from the command line would show this file sitting in the 
SM default profile folder, but that doesn't solve his problem.

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

Re: Reorganizing bookmarks - HOW?

[null]

Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm using
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/51.0 SeaMonkey/2.48

Build identifier: 20170706221455
on a Debian 9 system.

Over the years my bookmarks have grown topsy turvy. I currently have 
over 400 folders nested at least 3 deep (no idea how many bookmarks).


I find the "Manage Bookmarks" option too cumbersome.
I experimented with an "export as HTML, edit HTML, import HTML" 
sequence. It is doable but sub-par.


Is there a newbie friendly tool to do a "backup as JSON, edit the 
JSON, restore from edited JSON file" sequence.


I've not done any significant coding since using dBaseII and 8080 
assembler in the 70's.


TIA

As a power user of bookmarks since the old Netscape days, I was 
intrigued to see a posting about them as we don't seem to see much 
discussion about bookmarks.


However, from what you say, it's not entirely clear what the problem is. 
For instance, you say you find "Manage Bookmarks" too cumbersome, but 
what other way could there possibly be to organize your bookmarks? I 
probably have more bookmarks and folders than you, and every so often I 
open Manage Bookmarks and set about filing new bookmarks withing my 
system of folders, creating new folders as necessary, deleting bookmarks 
that I decide I no longer need, and so on. True, you can export the 
bookmark file as HTML, but trying to edit that would be vastly more 
difficult than the previous alternative, and trying to edit the JSON 
file would, I think, be impossible.


Perhaps you could post more details of what exactly your problem is in 
organizing your bookmarks.

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

Re: half a character missing

[null]

Daniel wrote:

null wrote:
Recently, I've noticed that in the "From" line in the header for 
posts read here, the left half of the first character of the entry is 
missing, i.e. doesn't display.
Not getting this when I use SM for my own emails. Anyone else noticed 
this? Seems to be a misalignment specific to these Mozilla groups.


Not me!! All showing fine!!


Well, the vertical stroke in your "D" for "Daniel" is missing! Weird, eh?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

half a character missing

[null]

Recently, I've noticed that in the "From" line in the header for posts 
read here, the left half of the first character of the entry is missing, 
i.e. doesn't display.
Not getting this when I use SM for my own emails. Anyone else noticed 
this? Seems to be a misalignment specific to these Mozilla groups.

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

Re: Google Search Tools Not Working

[null]

mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:

Cecil Bankston wrote:
The Tools button on the Google search page opens drop-down lists for 
setting time range of search results and verbatim/all results 
settings. These tools work as expected in other browsers, but 
clicking the drop-down tools in SeaMonkey does nothing.


Try changing the setting at Edit > Preferences > Advanced > HTTP 
Networking > Advertise Firefox compatibility. I think it defaults to 
on, but I've found that several parts of Google (and a few other 
sites) only work properly with it off. Either way, try changing it 
from whatever it is at the moment and reload the Google page.


If you have the Lightning extension installed, also ensure that 
"Advertise Lightning installation" is off; that seems to interfere 
with some sites' browser detection.


This is very intriguing - never noticed the problem before. I checked, 
and I get it, too.


I have a number of browsers installed for testing and comparison 
purposes. I tested Firefox, Chrome, Vivaldi, and Pale Moon, and the 
problem does not occur there - the required drop-downs open as they should.


The problem therefore seems to be SM-specific. I tried turning off 
Advertise Firefox Compatibility as you suggest. The result was that the 
the Tools button and its three drop-downs disappears completely, and the 
full contents of the later are listed down the left side of the top of 
the citations resulting from a search. All very strange.

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

Re: Need help with password manager

[null]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

null wrote:

Been running SM for many years and currently using 2.49.1 without any 
problems. I have used password manager for years without any problems.


However, a couple of versions back I had to log in for the first time 
at an organization's site, but SM would not offer to save the ID and 
password details for me, and still not on subsequent occasions. The 
help desk people at the organization suggested that I might have 
accidentally clicked on "never save password." I don't think I did, 
but when I went to check this out, something seems amiss.

...


If you did, go into the Data Manager, choose "Permissions Only," and 
scrolls through the list for the website in question. Select it and 
you should see a pref listed on the right, "Save Passwords" with the 
option "Block" selected at the far right. Select "Allow" and that 
should enable you to save a password on your next visit.


If you haven't blocked passwords for this site, your problem lies 
elsewhere.


Thanks for the to about Permissions. Unfortunately, it seems that the 
site in question makes no entries of any sort in the Data Manager at 
all. That is, there is no entry for this site in any of the Data Manager 
categories. Hence, there is nothing to unblock.

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

Need help with password manager

[null]

Been running SM for many years and currently using 2.49.1 without any 
problems. I have used password manager for years without any problems.


However, a couple of versions back I had to log in for the first time at 
an organization's site, but SM would not offer to save the ID and 
password details for me, and still not on subsequent occasions. The help 
desk people at the organization suggested that I might have accidentally 
clicked on "never save password." I don't think I did, but when I went 
to check this out, something seems amiss.


Firstly, I deleted an already saved item from the password manager, then 
went to the relevant site and logged in manually to see if SM offered to 
remember the details again. It did, so that aspect of things seems to be 
working correctly.


Secondly, I looked in the SM help file to read up on the subject. There, 
it says that the Password Manager has two tabs, one saying "passwords 
saved" and the other saying "passwords never saved." However, when I 
click on Tools - Password Manager - Managed Stored Passwords", what I 
get is a window labelled "Data Manager."  This is divided vertically 
into 2 resizable halves. The left is headed with a drop-down box where 
you can select All data Types, Cookies only, Permissions only, 
Preferences only,  Passwords only, and Storage only. Below that is a 
search box labelled Search Domains, which appears to search All data 
types, which includes all the other categories.


On the right half of the window, at the top, are 5 tabs labelled 
Cookies, Permissions, Preferences, Passwords, and Storage. These are 
greyed out, but one or the other will go live when an item is clicked on 
in one of the afore-mentioned categories that can have their contents 
listed over in the left half. Once a web site address in the Passwords 
category on the left is clicked on, the passwords tab on the right goes 
live and two buttons labelled Show Passwords and Remove appear along 
with the now displayed URL and Username.


The point of this long description is that nowhere in the window are the 
tabs saying "passwords saved" and "passwords never saved" which the Help 
file states should be there.


Why not?

The absence of the "passwords never saved" tab meant that I couldn't 
check the contents to see if I had, in fact, accidentally instructed SM 
to never save the password as the organization's help desk suggested.


Bottom line seems to be that either the SM Help file is out of date due 
to some changes to the SM GUI, or there is something wrong with SM. Any 
suggestions would be welcome, because SM saves all my other passwords as 
it should, and I think it is the website that is at fault - I hope to 
convince them of that.

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

SM says Adobe plug-in unsafe, but no update available

[null]

For a very long time, through successive versions of SM, I have got the 
message saying that Adobe Reader is vulnerable and should be updated. 
The annoying thing about this is that I do have the latest version of 
Reader, but SM still keeps on with this warning.


Does anyone else get this?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Mason83 wrote:

On 27/08/2017 19:00, null wrote:

Mason83 wrote:

On 27/08/2017 17:26, null wrote:


So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by
the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks,
right?

Correct.


In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some
geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data.
The videos that DO play DO show that kind of data.

Can you play this old video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtMHmyKZa0

It's video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e" like the one you posted.

Yes, I can play it, but the "Info for nerds" says "Mime type : video
webm  codecs='vp8.0 vorbis".

Now why would that differ from what you get, I wonder. One possibility
is that the Youtube error page seems to hint, although without making it
explicitly clear, that Youtube may provide the video in one of several
ways depending on what the viewer has available at their end. Do you
think that this accounts for the different in the details that we each get?

Interesting. It does make sense that Youtube is able
to provide alternative streams for different platforms,
based on their capability... But I had assumed that
these old NBA videos had never been converted to WebM.
Guess I was wrong.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/225685/YouTube_Swiftly_Converts_Videos_in_WebM_Format.html
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2011/04/mmm-mmm-good-youtube-videos-now-served.html


As you say, contrary to what you thought, those links show that Youtube 
was converting everything to webm back then. Interesting to see that 
even back then in 2011, there were what in this thread I referred to as 
"video wars" going on. Of course, nothing stays the same, that was 6 
years ago, new issues have arisen since then.

I tried looking for old videos with few hits, maybe these
have not been converted yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5JPITBuJjk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEvz394GWD4
For me, these come as webm and play okay in SM. As an aside, and 
certainly not wishing to start a discussion about pop music, one of 
those links has what looks like a quite old clip of the young Arnel 
Pineda, the Filipino singer with the astounding "Steve Perry 2.0" voice, 
discovered by Journey and used by them to replace Steve who had retired 
from the band. Very into all this, never seen that sort of old stuff, 
very interesting.

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

Re: twin email accounts

[null]

Vincent Smith wrote:

Dear Sea Monkey,

I had a scour on your web page on this issue, but couldn't come up 
with anything. I have Sea Monkey 2.48 on my late 2013 iMAC, now 
running osSierra. My problem is, that in the email window the left 
hand side window has all my email accounts etc in it, but I have two 
versions of some of the accounts - one being POP and the other IMAP. I 
did this to try and retrieve some accidentally deleted local folders 
that once existed in Thunderbird, but to no avail. So, to take one of 
these, I have a POP email account (The above email address), and 
another IMAP version - both using the same password. The intention was 
to sort things out, and then keep the POP accounts, but delete the 
IMAP accounts. It suits me better, as I do not want to have anything 
to do with iCloud - or Google for that matter. However, when I try to 
go into the setup facility,
Do you mean the Mail & Newsgroups Account Settings window in SM where 
you can configure everything to do with POP mail, IMAP mail, and 
newsgroups?
I cannot check which one is which - so as to delete the right one 
safely. I get an error message saying that "there is already an 
account with this email address" etc., 


What, EXACTLY, do you do that results in that error message?

and it won't let me in to the necessary information. Is there a way 
around this, or at least how can I correctly identify which version of 
the account is which?


Kind Regards,

Vince Smith.


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

Re: moderation

[null]

cmcadams wrote:

Edmund Wong wrote:

Hi all,

Was reading mozilla.support.seamonkey and thought to myself,
"geez.. there's certainly a lot of spam..  where's the moderation.."

That's when my internal voice trailed off and said... 'oh'.

So this is a heads-up.  If you see an influx of old messages  you
can blame it on me.  (or the rain, if you wish. :) )

To those affected by this, my humblest apologies.

Edmund



I'll blame the rain, Edmund. :)

Craig

Perhaps we should all just learn Italian . . . .
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Mason83 wrote:

On 27/08/2017 17:26, null wrote:


So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by
the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks,
right?

Correct.


In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some
geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data.
The videos that DO play DO show that kind of data.

Can you play this old video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtMHmyKZa0

It's video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e" like the one you posted.

Regards.
Yes, I can play it, but the "Info for nerds" says "Mime type : video 
webm  codecs='vp8.0 vorbis".


Now why would that differ from what you get, I wonder. One possibility 
is that the Youtube error page seems to hint, although without making it 
explicitly clear, that Youtube may provide the video in one of several 
ways depending on what the viewer has available at their end. Do you 
think that this accounts for the different in the details that we each get?

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Mason83 wrote:

On 26/08/2017 16:24, null wrote:


Mason83 wrote:


That's an MP4 container with H.264-encoded video.
They don't specify the audio codec, I'll bet AAC.

That "test" video at the above link has unfortunately been removed by
the user.

When you right click on the settings button on the Youtube window, you
get an option for geeks which when selected gives info about the video.
However, it doesn't seem to give the sort of info you cite above. Where
did you get that from?

Yeah, it was in the stats for geeks.

Mime Type: video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e"

mp4 means an MPEG-4 Part 14 container.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14

avc1.4d401e means H.264 Main Profile Level 3
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16363167/html5-video-tag-codecs-attribute

Have a look at that page, it seems pretty nifty.
http://www.leanbackplayer.com/test/h5mt.html

I wonder what kind of sniffing it performs.

Regards.
So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by 
the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks, 
right? In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some 
geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data. The videos 
that DO play DO show that kind of data.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

null wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:


The term "open source library for working with video on the web"
is being equated with the term "HTML video player." In the
simplest possible terms, such a "library" is also called a
"player."

Definition of "software library" from The Free Dictionary: "a
collection of standard routines used in computer programs, usually
stored as an executable file."

So the sentence really isn't ungrammatical or ambiguous. You just
have to know how to parse it.


Yes, as you say, in the "simplest possible terms", but sometimes
"simple" becomes "simplistic", and therefore less than clear. Saying
that you just have to know how to parse it is like saying that you
just have to understand written English! With the sort of stuff I'm
talking about in this thread, you shouldn't have to parse and
syntactically analyze, the meaning should be clear without having to
resort to re-reading, cogitation, etc. Don't want to make too much of
that one single sentence above, but I've gotta say that I've found
the web overflowing with masses of stuff about this or that aspect of
computer and web technology and new developments in these areas, and
that a huge proportion of it begs more questions than it answers
because it fails to comply with even the most basic principles of
technical or expository writing, or even with basic English grammar
and syntax. Given that much of it is there for the benefit of
non-techie, ordinary users rather than geeks, coders, developers, or
whatever who would know a lot more, this is very frustrating. ...


Yeah, well, two more points:

1) The vast majority of people on this forum are not professional 
writers, so you have to adjust your expectations.
Perhaps I should have made it explicitly clear - although I though it 
would have been clear from the context of what I said - that I am NOT 
referring to what people write in fora like this newsgroup or others 
that I subscribe to. I was referring to what you find on websites.
2) It's perfectly normal in any technical field to encounter 
specialized jargon, and it would be unnatural and also difficult to 
follow if posters avoided that jargon.

Again, NOT talking about posters, as I point out above.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-26 8:06 AM, null wrote:

But getting back to the problem that I can't use SM or FF to watch 
video presented with Youtube's HTML5 Player, people say that I don't 
have the necessary codecs or that my XP OS doesn't have the 
necessary. Well, my Chrome browser on my XP machine DOES play those 
videos. If Chrome has something in it that does that running on XP, 
why doesn't FF and SM? Now, I can think of various possible answers 
to that question, but i can't identify the correct answer.



The following also applies to SeaMonkey:

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Supported_media_formats> 

"[10] To avoid patent issues, support for MPEG 4, H.264 and MP3 is not 
built directly into Firefox. Instead it relies on support from the OS 
or hardware (the hardware also needs to be able to support the profile 
used to encode the video, in the case of MP4). Firefox supports these 
formats on the following platforms: Windows Vista+ since Firefox 22.0, 
Android since Firefox 20.0, Firefox OS since Firefox 15.0, Linux since 
Firefox 26.0 (relies on GStreamer codecs) and OS X 10.7 since Firefox 
35.0."


Thanks indeed for the above link to that stuff - hadn't come across it 
myself, very interesting but also very complex, still reading and slowly 
trying to get my head around it. thanks again.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Mason83 wrote:

On 26/08/2017 08:14, null wrote:


Anyway, thanks to the stuff on your links, I now get the general idea
that "an HTML5. video player" refers to software that resides on _the
server_, and uses HTML5 rather than flash or webM to do . . . well . . .
whatever it does that results in my browser getting a data feed that it
can display on my screen as a video.

Not quite. Javascript runs on the client (your browser).
And the video stream (typically a WebM or MP4 container)
is "decapsulated" on the host, and the compressed audio
and video streams are decompressed and sent to the
audio layer and frame buffer of the host.

There is no HTML5 vs WebM. HTML5 video specifies a standard
way to ... interact with a video stream (typically in a
container, but elementary streams might be supported).


I've noticed that my problem playing some Youtube videos seems to
frequently arise with current affairs videos. Just now went to Youtube
and found the following, which will not play and gives the error message
discussed earlier in this thread. And with JavaScript turned off, I
don't even get the error message, just a blank, black window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfImP6jr28g

That's an MP4 container with H.264-encoded video.
They don't specify the audio codec, I'll bet AAC.

Regards.
That "test" video at the above link has unfortunately been removed by 
the user.


When you right click on the settings button on the Youtube window, you 
get an option for geeks which when selected gives info about the video. 
However, it doesn't seem to give the sort of info you cite above. Where 
did you get that from?

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

You can try this one:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175591-enable-mp4-h264-aac-html5-video-in-firefox-on-windows-xp-without-flash/ 

Thanks for that. there is a download link there for the Adobe thingy 
they talk about, got it, scanned it, unzpped it, put it in a folder as 
they instruct, didn't make any difference at that point, but perhaps 
tomorrow I will make the about:config changes they list and see what 
happens.


Probably the only way to get it working under XP. 2.48 is Fx 51

The POS2009 hack will give you current updates for your system till 
2019 but does nothing for video decoding.


You can get a decent older Thinkpad running Windows 7 like a champ for 
around $70. Same for other brands. Older office PCs are probably less. 
While you can still get 10 for free from Microsoft but I wouldn't 
recommend it. Not sure what to do after 2020 myself. Maybe go to Linux.


Yeah, I guess I'll have to upgrade sooner or later, although it will 
have to be a PC with a full size keyboard and a mouse - just can't abide 
laptops, it would drive me nuts no matter how cheap. W10 may still be 
free from MS, but only if you do the download using W7 or higher. I 
don't recall there ever being any sort of free download or upgrade for 
XP, and if there was I imagine it's long gone. Apart from the pesky 
cost, the problem with upgrading the hardware and going to W10 is that 
there are many unknowns. Apart from the fact that I know XP inside out 
and, like a lot of others have said, find the GUI and general way it 
runs very much to my liking, I suspect that a huge number of programmes 
I currently use may not run properly on W10, if they will run at all, 
and I would find that out the hard way. I do know what you refer to with 
the POS 2009 hack, but I think that would be fraught with all sorts of 
possible complications, and as you say it's on the way out, anyway.


FRG

null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/25/17 12:55 PM, null wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents 
of Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 
player.


HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing 
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play 
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, 
similar to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more 
info, this video does a good job explaining it 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsXEVQRaTX8>.


Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill 
Flash.


As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble 
with HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something 
later than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.


Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought 
there really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original 
post because people keep using the term as if there was!


There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but 
there is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various 
people who write about these things would stop talking as though 
there was!!


For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my 
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. 
When I click on the link proved in the message to get info about 
HTML5 video, I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request 
that the HTML5 player be used if your browser doesn't use it by 
default" That nonsensical statements implies 1) that something 
called the HTML Player exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to 
explain exactly how I can "request" that the HTML player be used! 
Further down, there is another reference to "The HTML5 player." 
These statements referring to "the HTML player" are to me 
completely meaningless - I have no idea what they are supposed to 
mean - yet they are put there by Youtube as if what is said is 
quite clear. The page also says that my SM browser does support 
HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, and MSE & WebM VP9, but 
does not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So what, exactly, are the 
implications of this information? I don't know, and Youtube doesn't 
say.





Are you blocking JavaScript?

<http://videojs.com/>

<http://html5video.org/wiki/HTML5_Video_Player_Comparison>


I'm not blocking JavaScript. However, as a test, I have tried turning 
it off in the SM config, but it makes no practical difference to the 
video problem.


Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown 
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5 
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For 
instance, the videojs site says that


"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the 
web, also known as an *HTML video player."


*What, exactly, is thi

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

null wrote:


Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For instance,
the videojs site says that

"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the web,
also known as an *HTML video player."

*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually
trying to tell me? ...


The term "open source library for working with video on the web" is 
being equated with the term "HTML video player." In the simplest 
possible terms, such a "library" is also called a "player."


Definition of "software library" from The Free Dictionary: "a 
collection of standard routines used in computer programs, usually 
stored as an executable file."


So the sentence really isn't ungrammatical or ambiguous. You just have 
to know how to parse it.


Yes, as you say, in the "simplest possible terms", but sometimes 
"simple" becomes "simplistic", and therefore less than clear. Saying 
that you just have to know how to parse it is like saying that you just 
have to understand written English! With the sort of stuff I'm talking 
about in this thread, you shouldn't have to parse and syntatically 
analyze, the meaning should be clear without having to resort to 
re-reading, cogitation, etc. Don't want to make too much of that one 
single sentence above, but I've gotta say that I've found the web 
overflowing with masses of stuff about this or that aspect of computer 
and web technology and new developments in these areas, and that a huge 
proportion of it begs more questions than it answers because it fails to 
comply with even the most basic principles of technical or expository 
writing, or even with basic English grammar and syntax. Given that much 
of it is there for the benefit of non-techie, ordinary users rather than 
geeks, coders, developers, or whatever who would know a lot more, this 
is very frustrating.


But getting back to the problem that I can't use SM or FF to watch video 
presented with Youtube's HTML5 Player, people say that I don't have the 
necessary codecs or that my XP OS doesn't have the necessary. Well, my 
Chrome browser on my XP machine DOES play those videos. If Chrome has 
something in it that does that running on XP, why doesn't FF and SM? 
Now, I can think of various possible answers to that question, but i 
can't identify the correct answer.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/25/17 12:55 PM, null wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing 
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play 
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, similar 
to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more info, this 
video does a good job explaining it 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsXEVQRaTX8>.


Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill 
Flash.


As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble 
with HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something 
later than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.


Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought there 
really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original post 
because people keep using the term as if there was!


There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but 
there is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various 
people who write about these things would stop talking as though 
there was!!


For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my 
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. 
When I click on the link proved in the message to get info about 
HTML5 video, I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request 
that the HTML5 player be used if your browser doesn't use it by 
default" That nonsensical statements implies 1) that something called 
the HTML Player exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to explain exactly 
how I can "request" that the HTML player be used! Further down, there 
is another reference to "The HTML5 player." These statements 
referring to "the HTML player" are to me completely meaningless - I 
have no idea what they are supposed to mean - yet they are put there 
by Youtube as if what is said is quite clear. The page also says that 
my SM browser does support HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, 
and MSE & WebM VP9, but does not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So 
what, exactly, are the implications of this information? I don't 
know, and Youtube doesn't say.





Are you blocking JavaScript?

<http://videojs.com/>

<http://html5video.org/wiki/HTML5_Video_Player_Comparison>


I'm not blocking JavaScript. However, as a test, I have tried turning it 
off in the SM config, but it makes no practical difference to the video 
problem.


Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown 
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5 
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For instance, 
the videojs site says that


"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the web, 
also known as an *HTML video player."


*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually 
trying to tell me? Grammatically, one possibility is that working with 
video on the web is also known as an HTML video player, but that makes 
no semantic sense at all. Other possible but only slightly more 
meaningful interpretations come to mind, but I won't waste trying trying 
to explicate those.


Anyway, thanks to the stuff on your links, I now get the general idea 
that "an HTML5. video player" refers to software that resides on _the 
server_, and uses HTML5 rather than flash or webM to do . . . well . . . 
whatever it does that results in my browser getting a data feed that it 
can display on my screen as a video.


I've noticed that my problem playing some Youtube videos seems to 
frequently arise with current affairs videos. Just now went to Youtube 
and found the following, which will not play and gives the error message 
discussed earlier in this thread. And with JavaScript turned off, I 
don't even get the error message, just a blank, black window.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfImP6jr28g

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

NFN Smith wrote:

null wrote:

Thanks for above links, which are very helpful. I would post some 
URLs for videos I can't play, but an odd thing is happening. Some 
videos that wouldn't play now will play, and some that would now 
won't, so I'm going to poke around on  this a bit more with Youtube 
and see if I can pin  > down some stable examples.


If you're having that kind of behavior, you might want to create a 
separate profile, and see what happens when you're running from all 
default settings.  It may be that the problems you're having are not 
so much "Seamonkey" or even "mozilla" (especially if you can get the 
expected behavior from another browser), as it is conflicts that are 
related to your user profile in Seamonkey.


My experience is that inconsistent behavior from specific sites is 
often something that's profile-specific.


You could also try seeing what happens when you try Safe Mode (Help -> 
Restart with Add-ons disabled).


Smith

Thanks for the suggestions but just tried a new profile and it made no 
difference. Also tried with add-ons disabled, but again no difference

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing 
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play 
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, similar 
to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more info, this 
video does a good job explaining it 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsXEVQRaTX8>.


Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill Flash.

As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble with 
HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something later 
than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.


Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought there 
really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original post because 
people keep using the term as if there was!


There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but there 
is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various people who 
write about these things would stop talking as though there was!!


For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my 
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. When 
I click on the link proved in the message to get info about HTML5 video, 
I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request that the HTML5 
player be used if your browser doesn't use it by default" That 
nonsensical statements implies 1) that something called the HTML Player 
exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to explain exactly how I can 
"request" that the HTML player be used! Further down, there is another 
reference to "The HTML5 player." These statements referring to "the HTML 
player" are to me completely meaningless - I have no idea what they are 
supposed to mean - yet they are put there by Youtube as if what is said 
is quite clear. The page also says that my SM browser does support 
HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, and MSE & WebM VP9, but does 
not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So what, exactly, are the implications 
of this information? I don't know, and Youtube doesn't say.


 *


 *

 *

 *

 *

 *

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

TCW wrote:

On 8/22/2017 6:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either 
SM or FF.


For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not 
play in SM 2.46. Instead, an error message says "Your browser does 
not currently recognize and of the video formats available. Click 
here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."


The same problem occurs in FF 52.3.0.

Going to the offered Youtube FAQ, the information there is confusing 
and inadequate - it does not tell me exactly what I have to do or 
what I need in order to play video that apparently wants the HTML 
player . . . whatever exactly that is!


Chrome 49.0.2623.112 *will* run the *same* videos that the others won't.

What is going on here!? Very difficult to get any clear explanation 
about this.


Can anyone explain?


Agreeing with Frank on the XP thing. If you're on XP, best bet is to 
*try* K-Lite Basic. Otherwise, . 2017 tech doesn't work on a 
15+ year old OS.


Chrome 49 isn't FF 52.3.0. Who knows what tricks they used back in 
v49.0. You're running insecure apps my friend. If you insist on 
running a depreciated OS, at least do the POS2009 hack for XP to keep 
yourself safe for a few more years.
Well, unless you buy me W10 and a computer it will actually run on, I 
think I'm going to have to use XP and my old hardware for a while yet, 
'cos some of us have less money than others . . . .. :-(


I know about POS2009, but don't see it as a viable option for a number 
of reasons. However,thanks for the thought.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Mason83 wrote:

On 22/08/2017 13:17, null wrote:


There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of Adobe
Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.

Flash is on the way out (December 2020).
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/25/adobe-retires-flash-in-december-2020/

Webm is a video format using only free audio/video codecs
(On2 VP8, Vorbis, Opus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebM

HTML5 is a family of technologies, one of which is the video element.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

In particular, you'll want to read carefully
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Free_formats

The problem is patents, and companies owning these
patents. Specifically H.264 and MPEG-LA.
(Although Cisco did provide a royalty-free H.264
decoder, if I am not mistaken...)
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/10/30/video-interoperability-on-the-web-gets-a-boost-from-ciscos-h-264-codec/

AV1 will set us all free!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1
Alliance for Open Media Video 1


Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either SM
or FF.

For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not play
in SM 2.46.

Please provide an URL (or several) of such videos.
I'm willing to bet that they work on most SM setups.

Regards.
Thanks for above links, which are very helpful. I would post some URLs 
for videos I can't play, but an odd thing is happening. Some videos that 
wouldn't play now will play, and some that would now won't, so I'm going 
to poke around on  this a bit more with Youtube and see if I can pin 
down some stable examples.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Steve Dunn wrote:


On 2017-08-22 10:20, null wrote:


Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.


You do, but you are missing one of the most common codecs, which may
be the problem.  There are numerous codecs
(COmpressors-DECompressors) for video, much like there are for audio,
and you need to have at least one in common with whatever codecs the
site you're visiting supports.

...

My 32-bit Seamonkey 2.46 running on 64-bit Windows 7 has checkmarks
in all of those boxes, and has no problem playing videos on Youtube.
That does lend credence to the theory that it's because you're
missing H.264.

Years ago, I saw a recommendation for the K-Lite Codec Pack and I
installed it on my computer.  Maybe that's the difference.


My 32-bit SeaMonkey 2.46 running on 64-bit Windows 7 Pro SP1 also has 
check marks in all the boxes, but not because I ever installed K-Lite. 
This thread is the first I've heard of it.


However, I do have the VLC player installed, as well as Adobe Flash 
and Shockwave, so maybe one of those provided the required code. In 
its advanced preferences, VLC lists H264 under "demuxers," FWIW.


Yup, have had VLC, flash, shockwave installed for a long time. Doesn't 
make any difference.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Steve Dunn wrote:

On 2017-08-22 10:20, null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

Do you have HTML5 support?

<https://www.youtube.com/html5>

What is checked there?


Using SM, The page asks the question "What does this browser support?"

The following boxes are ticked :
HTMLVideoElement
Media Source Extensions
WebM VP8
MSE & WebM  VP9

The following boxes have an exclamation mark in them :
H.264
MSE & H.264

Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.


You do, but you are missing one of the most common codecs, which 
may be the problem.  There are numerous codecs 
(COmpressors-DECompressors) for video, much like there are for audio, 
and you need to have at least one in common with whatever codecs the 
site you're visiting supports.


To put it in a non-technical analogy, HTML5 support is like the 
Roman alphabet and the codecs (VP8, VP9, H.264, etc.) are like 
languages.  If I know the Roman alphabet and two languages that use it 
(say, English and French) but the site only has videos in two other 
languages that also use the Roman alphabet (say, Swedish and 
Romanian), well, that won't work.


My 32-bit Seamonkey 2.46 running on 64-bit Windows 7 has 
checkmarks in all of those boxes, and has no problem playing videos on 
Youtube.  That does lend credence to the theory that it's because 
you're missing H.264.


Years ago, I saw a recommendation for the K-Lite Codec Pack and I 
installed it on my computer.  Maybe that's the difference.


-Steve
Yes, I know what you mean in your analogy with the Roman alphabet. 
However, I've had h.264 available for a long time. Have used k-lite in 
the past, and have just installed it again, but nothing changes. Sigh.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

TCW wrote:

On 8/22/2017 9:20 AM, null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/22/17 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in 
either SM or FF.


For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not 
play in SM 2.46. Instead, an error message says "Your browser does 
not currently recognize and of the video formats available. Click 
here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."


The same problem occurs in FF 52.3.0.

Going to the offered Youtube FAQ, the information there is 
confusing and inadequate - it does not tell me exactly what I have 
to do or what I need in order to play video that apparently wants 
the HTML player . . . whatever exactly that is!


Chrome 49.0.2623.112 *will* run the *same* videos that the others 
won't.


What is going on here!? Very difficult to get any clear explanation 
about this.


Can anyone explain?


Do you have HTML5 support?

<https://www.youtube.com/html5>

What is checked there?


Using SM, The page asks the question "What does this browser support?"

The following boxes are ticked :
HTMLVideoElement
Media Source Extensions
WebM VP8
MSE & WebM  VP9

The following boxes have an exclamation mark in them :
H.264
MSE & H.264

Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.


You could also try installing K-Lite Codec pack basic.
Yeah, I've used K-Lite before. Have just installed it again, but it 
makes no difference.

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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

Desiree wrote:

On 8/22/2017 4:20 AM, null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/22/17 7:17 AM, null wrote:

There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.

Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either
SM or FF.

For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not
play in SM 2.46. Instead, an error message says "Your browser does
not currently recognize and of the video formats available. Click
here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."

The same problem occurs in FF 52.3.0.

Going to the offered Youtube FAQ, the information there is confusing
and inadequate - it does not tell me exactly what I have to do or
what I need in order to play video that apparently wants the HTML
player . . . whatever exactly that is!

Chrome 49.0.2623.112 *will* run the *same* videos that the others 
won't.


What is going on here!? Very difficult to get any clear explanation
about this.

Can anyone explain?


Do you have HTML5 support?

<https://www.youtube.com/html5>

What is checked there?


Using SM, The page asks the question "What does this browser support?"

The following boxes are ticked :
HTMLVideoElement
Media Source Extensions
WebM VP8
MSE & WebM  VP9

The following boxes have an exclamation mark in them :
H.264
MSE & H.264

Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.

Can you play this youtube video "HTML5 Video as Fast as Possible"? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsXEVQRaTX8


Yes, I can play that video. Had already watched it, as an OP had earlier 
alerted me to it. However, although the guy does explain some of the 
reasons why HTML5 is desirable, he doesn't really discuss the video 
problem issue  or the precise easons for it.
I have SeaMonkey 2.48 on Windows 8.0 Pro.  The above video plays using 
"MSE & WebM VP9".
How did you determine that it plays using MSE & WebM VP9? I don't see 
any way I can do that myself.


Does the youtube HTML5 page say that "The HTML5 player is currently 
used when possible"?
Yes,  it does. The annoying thing about that statement is that it 
DOESN'T say what - if anything - Youtube does with the video if it is 
NOT possible to use the HTML5 player. Why can't things just default to . 
. . well . . . something else?


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

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/22/17 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either 
SM or FF.


For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not 
play in SM 2.46. Instead, an error message says "Your browser does 
not currently recognize and of the video formats available. Click 
here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."


The same problem occurs in FF 52.3.0.

Going to the offered Youtube FAQ, the information there is confusing 
and inadequate - it does not tell me exactly what I have to do or 
what I need in order to play video that apparently wants the HTML 
player . . . whatever exactly that is!


Chrome 49.0.2623.112 *will* run the *same* videos that the others won't.

What is going on here!? Very difficult to get any clear explanation 
about this.


Can anyone explain?


Do you have HTML5 support?

<https://www.youtube.com/html5>

What is checked there?


Using SM, The page asks the question "What does this browser support?"

The following boxes are ticked :
HTMLVideoElement
Media Source Extensions
WebM VP8
MSE & WebM  VP9

The following boxes have an exclamation mark in them :
H.264
MSE & H.264

Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

[null]

There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of Adobe 
Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either SM 
or FF.


For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not play 
in SM 2.46. Instead, an error message says "Your browser does not 
currently recognize and of the video formats available. Click here to 
visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."


The same problem occurs in FF 52.3.0.

Going to the offered Youtube FAQ, the information there is confusing and 
inadequate - it does not tell me exactly what I have to do or what I 
need in order to play video that apparently wants the HTML player . . . 
whatever exactly that is!


Chrome 49.0.2623.112 *will* run the *same* videos that the others won't.

What is going on here!? Very difficult to get any clear explanation 
about this.


Can anyone explain?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: "Search Messages" won't work for "Content"

[null]

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/20/17 5:28 AM, null wrote:

Daniel wrote:

On 20/08/2017 4:08 PM, null wrote:

I've used SM's Search Messages to find stuff in my local system email
archives hundreds of times, including for Content - always worked.

Now, running SM 2.46, that won't work when I search for content in 
this
news group. specifically, when I search the content for a word I 
know is

there, it comes up blank.

Searching for a From or Subject string does work.

The same  is happening when I search local system archives other news
groups I subscribe to.

However, a Content search does work on my archived personal email 
material.


Anyone else seen this problem or know what might cause it?


I seem to recall that you might need to download the newsgroup posts 
onto your hard drive in order to do a search of the posts, because 
the NG posts are not, normally, downloaded onto your hard drive!!


Note the reference in my above post to "local system archives. " The 
emails ARE on my HD if I have read them, which I have.


And now, I must report that "Option" has entirely disappeared from 
the drop-down box of search options, although all the other search 
options continue to be listed. What the heck is going on??


Yes, your emails are on your hard drive, but you said you were 
searching this newsgroup and the messages are not.


You are reading the content from the server, only the Header is 
downloaded.


First download and install SeaMonkey 2.48 released 2017-07-31.

<https://www.seamonkey-project.org/>

Then select the newsgroup Account > View settings for this account > 
Synchronization & Storage, then click the "Select newsgroups for 
offline use..." button and select the newsgroup, then try your search 
again.


Duh!! I see I was getting myself a bit confused above. Thought I had 
been able to search for content in the news groups previously, but I 
think I was actually searching the subject line - haven't done it for so 
long. Have set things for offline use as you explain above, can now 
search the contents. Thanks for the heads-up..

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

Re: "Search Messages" won't work for "Content"

[null]

Daniel wrote:

On 20/08/2017 4:08 PM, null wrote:

I've used SM's Search Messages to find stuff in my local system email
archives hundreds of times, including for Content - always worked.

Now, running SM 2.46, that won't work when I search for content in this
news group. specifically, when I search the content for a word I know is
there, it comes up blank.

Searching for a From or Subject string does work.

The same  is happening when I search local system archives other news
groups I subscribe to.

However, a Content search does work on my archived personal email 
material.


Anyone else seen this problem or know what might cause it?


I seem to recall that you might need to download the newsgroup posts 
onto your hard drive in order to do a search of the posts, because the 
NG posts are not, normally, downloaded onto your hard drive!!


Note the reference in my above post to "local system archives. " The 
emails ARE on my HD if I have read them, which I have.


And now, I must report that "Option" has entirely disappeared from the 
drop-down box of search options, although all the other search options 
continue to be listed. What the heck is going on??

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

"Search Messages" won't work for "Content"

[null]

I've used SM's Search Messages to find stuff in my local system email 
archives hundreds of times, including for Content - always worked.


Now, running SM 2.46, that won't work when I search for content in this 
news group. specifically, when I search the content for a word I know is 
there, it comes up blank.


Searching for a From or Subject string does work.

The same  is happening when I search local system archives other news 
groups I subscribe to.


However, a Content search does work on my archived personal email material.

Anyone else seen this problem or know what might cause it?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Edit the user dictionary ?

[null]

Ed Mullen wrote:

On 8/16/17 at 10:20 AM, Hawker created this epitome of digital genius:

Is there a way to edit the words added to the user dictionary?
I know I can hover over a word, RMB and select remove from dictionary 
but it would be great to see the list of all words and remove 
anything I saw that was a mistake.  I found directions for 
Thunderbird and Firefox for this but they didn't seem to translate to 
SM.
This is for the browser side, I assume they share the same user 
dictionary?


Thanx
  Hawker


It's a text file in your profile:  persdict.dat

Browser and Mail/News use the same profile.

TB also uses persdict.dat.  No idea about FF; I've never used its 
spelling function.


I have SM, TB, and FF installed, but a search of the HD doesn't turn up 
a file called persdict.dat.

Why would that be?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: E MAIL CRASHES ON 2.48

[null]

wwel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-4, wwe...@gmail.com wrote:

I have a Mac and just downloaded SM 2.48. The problem is that when I attempt to 
open an e mail the whole program crashed!

What can I do to fix this?  Thanks.

Now for unknown reason (after I tried to restart SM) it doesn't even open!!

I'm back to where every time I try to open SM it doesn't open but crashes 
immediately!

What is going on here??
Surely the thing to do at this point is to see what happens if you 
simply re-install 2.48? Have you done that? There could be a glitch on 
your HD affecting a key file or files.

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

Re: Slow SM due to ZA antivirus?

[null]

Pat Connors wrote:
I have been using Zone Alarm for years.  Currently using on Win 7, 8 
and 10 without any problems.  Also use SeaMonkey on all three.



Is that just the ZA firewall, or the firewall plus the ZA antivirus?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Slow SM due to ZA antivirus?

[null]

Paul in Houston, TX wrote:

null wrote:

Paul in Houston, TX wrote:

null wrote:
Been using SM for years without problems, but this year it seems to 
run slower and slower.
Also been running Zone Alarm free firewall + antivirus for a very 
long time. There is
increasing circumstantial evidence that ZA's antivirus checking is 
slowing the loading of
SM - and a lot of my other programmes, too - but it is worst with 
SM. When run, SM often
takes a minute or more before even the browser frame appears, and 
Firefox was not much
better until I recently discovered how to do what FF calls a 
"refresh", whereupon load
speed improved considerably compared to SM. Chrome has always 
loaded fast, but that's

irrelevant to my problems because I don't like it and rarely use it.

So .while it seems to slow file running and saving in general, 
why would ZA so

particularly affect SM in comparison with my refreshed FF?

Can't be the computer - got 2GB RAM, 3.2MHz CPU, keep the HD well 
defragged, etc.


Anyone here using ZA who has a similar problem?


I use ZA firewall but never the anti-virus.  Actually I dont use any 
anti-virus at all

for at least 10 years now and have never noticed that problem.
Easy enough to check out.
Turn off loading of ZA and see if it makes a difference.

I realize that some users, like yourself, don't use an antivirus yet 
report no problems
for years. My experience has been the opposite and I now wouldn't be 
without both firewall
and antivirus, no even to solve this pesky slowness problem. Perhaps 
the virus danger
level  depends on what programmes you install, what you use your 
computer for, and where
you go on the net - everyone is different in that regard, and your 
activities may have

kept you at very low risk for some reason.

As for ZA slowing things down, snoozing the firewall and/or antivirus 
through the system
tray icon results in very little improvement. However, today I 
thought I'd try the toolbar
option that allows you to restart with add-ons disabled. Surprised to 
see from the window
that pops up that this actually is how to restart SM in safe mode, 
something I had read
about but had always assumed referred to the OS safe mode. SM could 
do with a bit of
clarification about this. Anyway, the result was that SM started 
loading in around 9
seconds instead of the recent 60 seconds or more, and this continued 
a number of times
when SM was started normally from the desktop icon, so the problem 
seems to have stopped.
Various other programmes and utilities are also loading faster as 
they used to. The
strange thing is that nothing seems to have changed with what SM 
chooses to call the
Add-ons, actually extensions or plugins, which are not the same 
thing. I have no
extensions. As for the plug-ins, some were previously set to 
automatic, some to manual,
and a couple disabled - none of that changed after I carried out the 
above, yet the slow
loading problem disappeared. All very mysterious and frustrating, to 
say nothing of time

consuming, Sigh.


Thanks for the update, Null.
Interesting that it is good with a normal start after a safe mode start.
Oh, and I always try no firewall with the cable unplugged or wifi 
turned off.


Well, if you choose the OS safe mode at boot, the next boot will be 
normal, so it would perhaps make sense for the SM safe mode to behave 
similarly. Of course, an important difference is that the later puts up 
window with a set of radio button options which you can also select 
before going into safe mode, such as deleting all bookmarks. Of course, 
the mystery is exactly what happened when I selected "Restart with 
Add-ons Disabled",  on the toolbar drop-down, ignored the radio button 
options,  and then proceeded to a reload in safe mode. Nothing seemed to 
have changed when I later looked at the add-ons, but not only SM but 
also FF are now loading very much quicker.


Good point about pulling the cable when testing "no firewall" - so easy 
to do and ensures no risk.

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

Re: Slow SM due to ZA antivirus?

[null]

Paul in Houston, TX wrote:

null wrote:
Been using SM for years without problems, but this year it seems to 
run slower and slower.
Also been running Zone Alarm free firewall + antivirus for a very 
long time. There is
increasing circumstantial evidence that ZA's antivirus checking is 
slowing the loading of
SM - and a lot of my other programmes, too - but it is worst with SM. 
When run, SM often
takes a minute or more before even the browser frame appears, and 
Firefox was not much
better until I recently discovered how to do what FF calls a 
"refresh", whereupon load
speed improved considerably compared to SM. Chrome has always loaded 
fast, but that's

irrelevant to my problems because I don't like it and rarely use it.

So .while it seems to slow file running and saving in general, 
why would ZA so

particularly affect SM in comparison with my refreshed FF?

Can't be the computer - got 2GB RAM, 3.2MHz CPU, keep the HD well 
defragged, etc.


Anyone here using ZA who has a similar problem?


I use ZA firewall but never the anti-virus.  Actually I dont use any 
anti-virus at all

for at least 10 years now and have never noticed that problem.
Easy enough to check out.
Turn off loading of ZA and see if it makes a difference.

I realize that some users, like yourself, don't use an antivirus yet 
report no problems for years. My experience has been the opposite and I 
now wouldn't be without both firewall and antivirus, no even to solve 
this pesky slowness problem. Perhaps the virus danger level  depends on 
what programmes you install, what you use your computer for, and where 
you go on the net - everyone is different in that regard, and your 
activities may have kept you at very low risk for some reason.


As for ZA slowing things down, snoozing the firewall and/or antivirus 
through the system tray icon results in very little improvement. 
However, today I thought I'd try the toolbar option that allows you to 
restart with add-ons disabled. Surprised to see from the window that 
pops up that this actually is how to restart SM in safe mode, something 
I had read about but had always assumed referred to the OS safe mode. SM 
could do with a bit of clarification about this. Anyway, the result was 
that SM started loading in around 9 seconds instead of the recent 60 
seconds or more, and this continued a number of times when SM was 
started normally from the desktop icon, so the problem seems to have 
stopped. Various other programmes and utilities are also loading faster 
as they used to. The strange thing is that nothing seems to have changed 
with what SM chooses to call the Add-ons, actually extensions or 
plugins, which are not the same thing. I have no extensions. As for the 
plug-ins, some were previously set to automatic, some to manual, and a 
couple disabled - none of that changed after I carried out the above, 
yet the slow loading problem disappeared. All very mysterious and 
frustrating, to say nothing of time consuming, Sigh.

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

Slow SM due to ZA antivirus?

[null]

Been using SM for years without problems, but this year it seems to run 
slower and slower. Also been running Zone Alarm free firewall + 
antivirus for a very long time. There is increasing circumstantial 
evidence that ZA's antivirus checking is slowing the loading of SM - and 
a lot of my other programmes, too - but it is worst with SM. When run, 
SM often takes a minute or more before even the browser frame appears, 
and Firefox was not much better until I recently discovered how to do 
what FF calls a "refresh", whereupon load speed improved considerably 
compared to SM. Chrome has always loaded fast, but that's irrelevant to 
my problems because I don't like it and rarely use it.


So .while it seems to slow file running and saving in general, why 
would ZA so particularly affect SM in comparison with my refreshed FF?


Can't be the computer - got 2GB RAM, 3.2MHz CPU, keep the HD well 
defragged, etc.


Anyone here using ZA who has a similar problem?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Seamonkey bookmarks

[null]

I've always felt that the way SM bookmarks work (and Netscape before 
that), is far better that in any comparable software.


However, when SM moved from an html boookmarks file to an sqlite file, 
two facilities were lost which I had always found extremely useful.


The first was the ability to use the drop-down File menu to place a 
separator between first level folders in the display, although a 
separator can still be placed between entries within a folder.


The second was the ability to place a label on a separator.

Since the sqlite bookmark system came into use some few years ago, I've 
seen quite a few requests in the forums to bring these things back, but 
there was never any response from developers about this and nothing changed.


Anyone got any thoughts on this, or know why these changes were made and 
have never been remedied?

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

Re: "SeaMonkey v2.46 wants to update your plug-in" ???

[null]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 7/6/2017 4:11 PM, no...@nonospam.org wrote:

I'm running SeaMonkey v2.46 on a Windows 10 Pro 64 bit system with the
Creators Update version 1703 installed.

This morning when I started SeaMonkey, it opened several tabs. Each one
said something like "SeaMonkey v2.46 would like to update your  plug-in. Each of these mentioned a different plug-in.

>>John

First of all, PrefBar is an extension, not a plugin.  There are
significant differences between the two.  The Mozilla developers did a
serious disservice to users when they decided to lump the two together
under the term "add-on".

I was interested in your above comment because I too have always been 
rather confused about the difference between an extension and a plugin, 
and I'm still unclear!


Would be great if you could post some clarification of this - I'm sure 
there would be others who would also find it helpful.

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

what's going on with internet video?

[null]

Running on XP, Seamonkey 2.46 will no longer display internet videos 
from Facebook and many news sites.


Neither will Firefox 52.0.2.

Anyone know what's going on here?

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

Re: SeaMonkey 2.46 released

[null]

-
Is working well here. Congratulations for the team.
Updated automatically (Help - Check for Updates)
Is any difference if we update automatically or if we unninstall and 
re-install with the downloaded exe file?

Thank you,
F. Filipe *®*

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46

Build identifier: 20161213183751
-


On 2016-12-22 10:13, Edmund Wong wrote:

Yes...  BELIEVE IT.. It's out! After so many months..  it's out!!!

Reading back on 2.40's post, I wrote it was a 'difficult release'...
man.. little DID I know.

Erm.. oh wait.  the formal post...

After so long a delay, for which we apologize, the SeaMonkey
Project is pleased to announce the release of SeaMonkey 2.40!

So please check out [1] or [2].

Please note that the website information, while updated for
2.40, still requires a bit more work.

We cannot repeat this enough.  Thank you everyone for your
patience with us.  This very long delay due to infrastructure
and resource issues has been very trying on a lot of people.

Edmund

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

Re: SeaMonkey 2.46 released

[null]

-
You deserve a "God Bless You". Congratulations for all the team.
Is this a Christmas gift?
On 2016-12-22 10:13, Edmund Wong wrote:

Yes...  BELIEVE IT.. It's out! After so many months..  it's out!!!

Reading back on 2.40's post, I wrote it was a 'difficult release'...
man.. little DID I know.

Erm.. oh wait.  the formal post...

After so long a delay, for which we apologize, the SeaMonkey
Project is pleased to announce the release of SeaMonkey 2.40!

So please check out [1] or [2].

Please note that the website information, while updated for
2.40, still requires a bit more work.

We cannot repeat this enough.  Thank you everyone for your
patience with us.  This very long delay due to infrastructure
and resource issues has been very trying on a lot of people.

Edmund


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

Re: GMail Question.... and Help..

[null]

JAS wrote:

SamuelS wrote:

Hello all,

I have two (2) gmail accounts loaded on my desktop configured as well
only one (1) of these accounts configured on my laptop.

The issue I Am having is, on my desktop the account is only sporadically
dl'ing messages, i.e. five out of 35 I receive in a day. I also have
gone back to the web based account and marked as 'not read' and still
the desk top is not able to recognize the message as new.

Is there something I need to do to correct this? These are set as pop3
accounts retrievals.

TIA - bo1953

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Maybe this will help some:
If you want to access Gmail using multiple pop-readers, you will need to
use Gmail's "recent mode".
Instructions --> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/47948

The trade-off is that if the pop-reader uses "recent mode", it will not
be able to access mail more than 30 days old.
Once it is read on one computer  it can not be read on another 
even if it is saved on the GMail account and if if you mark it as 
unread--the only way is ser it to "recent mode". You can with Yahoo or 
Hotmail but not GMail.


JAS


JAS,

Thank you, this appeared to have worked... much appreciated
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey 2.38 crashes

[null]

Gisele Latour pisze:

Hi,

Since I upgraded to v.2.38, SM crashes on some opening pages, mainly on
videos.
Details:
Application Error
plugin-container.exe, version : 41.0.0.5744
C:\Program Files (x86)\SeaMonkey\plugin-container.exe
module mozglue.dll
C:\Program Files (x86)\SeaMonkey\mozglue.dll
exception 0x8003
ID processus 0x17f8


I have the same problem, when I kill plugin-container or 
flashplayerplugin in task manager browser unfreezes but all flashplayer 
component are missing. Why so buggy version has been released?


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