not strictly a JS question, but....

[Frances Del Rio]

hello all, I have a question that is not striclty a JS question but
figured folks here would know..

what IS the difference between Netscape and mozilla?? I have used
both, they have the same LOOK AND FEEL, but other than that what's the
advantage of one over the other?? I test everyting I do on Netscape
7.1, if it tests ok on Netscape will it also test ok on mozilla? or do I
have to test on both?? What about Firefox?? is this yet another
version of mozilla? do I need to test on that also?? and what IS
'mozilla' exactly?? if I look up navigator properties, even for IE, I
see 'mozilla' under userAgent..

http://www.francesdelrio.com/nav_props.html

I'm asking because yesterday on netscape.public .general I came across
this link to download a toolbar for mozilla.. http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
and I was wondering if it'll work on 'regular' netscape or just
mozilla.. and this got me thinking about this, because a few years ago
I used mozilla and now am on netsape and really don't SEE any difference
between the two.. thank you..

[kaeli]

In article <2r************ *@uni-berlin.de>, fd***@yahoo.com enlightened us
with...

hello all, I have a question that is not striclty a JS question but
figured folks here would know..

what IS the difference between Netscape and mozilla?? I have used
both, they have the same LOOK AND FEEL, but other than that what's the
advantage of one over the other?? I test everyting I do on Netscape
7.1, if it tests ok on Netscape will it also test ok on mozilla? or do I
have to test on both?? What about Firefox?? is this yet another
version of mozilla?

The Mozilla Project (TMP) was started by some guys from Netscape and it
provided the code for Netscape 6 (gecko). Netscape then added some more
proprietary code to it. Mozilla remained open source.

As to the difference, from their FAQ:
[ quote src=http://texturizer.net/firefox/faq.html ]
What's the difference between Firefox and Mozilla?

Mozilla (Application Suite, also known as SeaMonkey) is a complete suite of
web related applications, such as a browser, a mail/news client, a chat
client and much more. Firefox is just a browser, which makes it a better
choice if you already have a mail client for example. Also, since Firefox is
smaller than the whole Mozilla suite, it's faster and easier to use.

Note, though, that Firefox is not just the standalone Mozilla browser. The
user interface in Firefox differs from Mozilla in many ways. For example,
Firefox has customizable toolbars.
[ /quote ]

Yes, you need to test on all you can. They aren't the same exactly.
The JS tends to work great (and the same) in all of them, but if you use CSS,
beware. Trust me. ;)
Netscape 7.0 has some CSS bugs that make my life difficult. The bugs are not
present in NN7.1 or any Mozilla or Firefox I have tested with. Go figure.
--
--
~kaeli~
Black holes were created when God divided by 0.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Grant Wagner]

kaeli wrote:

Yes, you need to test on all you can. They aren't the same exactly.
The JS tends to work great (and the same) in all of them, but if you use CSS,
beware. Trust me. ;)
Netscape 7.0 has some CSS bugs that make my life difficult. The bugs are not
present in NN7.1 or any Mozilla or Firefox I have tested with. Go figure.

Netscape is based on older Mozilla builds, and as such, may contain bugs which
have since been fixed in new releases of Mozilla and/or Firefox.

Even the newest version of Netscape available can be several releases behind the
most current Mozilla release. For example, Netscape 7.2 is based on Mozilla 1.7.
Mozilla is currently at 1.7.3 (which fixes some serious security vulnerabilities
still present in Netscape 7.2).

I believe Firefox 0.9.3 and Mozilla 1.7.2 were using the same Gecko engine, I
could be mistaken. But Firefox is now 1.0PR, and may be based on a newer Gecko
engine, I couldn't find anything obvious in my quick glimpse at the release
notes.

I just read the release notes for Camino, it's latest version is based on the
Mozilla 1.7.2 Gecko engine.

But of course, you can't expect people to be using the most up-to-date version of
Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox or Camino. Each of which is based on different Gecko
code, each with it's own quirks and bugs. As a result, even authoring for the
single family of Gecko-based browsers can be a minefield of inconsistencies and
incompatibiliti es, as you've discovered.

--
Grant Wagner <gw*****@agrico reunited.com>
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

[cwdjr]

As others have explained, Mozilla is more or less non-commercial,
while Netscape is very commercial. Go to the Mozilla home page, and
about all they are ofering is help and downloads. They also would like
donations. Go to the Netscape home page and you get all sorts of
moving ads and popups, etc. Netscape is now a part of AOL-Time-Warner.
When you download a Netscape browser, you get icons on the desktop
and other junk elsewhere for free AOL trials, etc., and it can be a
problem to get rid of all of these adware files even if you delete the
Netscape browser. In short, Netscape starts with a Mozilla browser,
usually a build or so back, and adds tons of commercial bloat.There
are some differences in scripting for the most recent Netscapes and
Mozillas. Just to take one example, Netscape now will support ActiveX
scripting for the WMP9(and probably WMP10) only, but not ActiveX in
general. The Mozilla does not support any ActiveX as it is downloaded.
However you can install WMP ActiveX support on the most recent
Mozillas by using a plugin that probably is about the same that
Netscape uses and that is/was available at the Mozilla site. You also
had to go in and install 3 registry keys when I did this, but this was
a version or two ago. This is not the sort of thing an average user
should be expected to do, so if they need ActiveX support of the WMP
they problably would be better off with Netscape that has it built
in.Mozilla, Apple, Opera, and others are working on a replacement for
ActiveX scripting that is secure and standards compliant. Some support
from software providers is needed, but I believe Adobe and others say
they will support it. If you have ever scripted for the WMP, flash,
etc, you know what a mess the code is. You usually have to start with
an ActiveX object with a 32 digit ID. This in nonstandard code. Then
within the ActiveX object, you have to embed code for browsers that do
not support ActiveX. The embed tag also is not part of official W3C
code.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Frances Del Rio wrote:

hello all, I have a question that is not striclty a JS question but
figured folks here would know..

what IS the difference between Netscape and mozilla??
Netscape is now (versions 6 and above) a Mozilla(.org) distribution.
Previously, "Mozilla" was only the codename of Netscape Web browsers.
I have used both, they have the same LOOK AND FEEL, but other than that
what's the advantage of one over the other??
Recent Netscape versions are based on older Mozilla.org builds.
I test everyting I do on Netscape 7.1, if it tests ok on Netscape will it
also test ok on mozilla?
Not necessarily.
or do I have to test on both??
Yes, you should test your code in as many UAs as possible.
What about Firefox?? is this yet another version of mozilla?
Mozilla Firefox is the new name of Firebird which was Phoenix previously.
In a nutshell: Firefox uses the same rendering engine as Mozilla (called
Netscape Gecko), but a different codebase.
do I need to test on that also??
See above.
and what IS 'mozilla' exactly??
"Mozilla" is the codename of Netscape browsers and their descendants.
There is a saying from the Netscape Unix Readme:

| And remember - it is spelled N-E-T-S-C-A-P-E, but pronounced MOZILLA.
if I look up navigator properties, even for IE, I see 'mozilla' under
userAgent..
When Microsoft eventually discovered the Web, Netscape was the market
leader in Web browser business. Since "Mozilla" was the codename for
Netscape browsers, it was in the User-Agent header of those browsers.
M$ simply adapted that, probably to work around Netscape-only sites,
eventually resulting in the UA header mess we have today (additional
fields were introduced to distinguish IE from Mozilla, Opera from
Mozilla, Opera from IE and so on.). That is why almost every UA sends
a UA header starting with "Mozilla". Only true Mozillas should not
have the "Compatible " substring in their UA header.
(But the UA header and properties referring to it or its components
are still nothing that can be relied upon, see
<http://www.pointedears .de/scripts/test/whatami>).
I'm asking because yesterday on netscape.public .general I came across
this link to download a toolbar for mozilla.. http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
and I was wondering if it'll work on 'regular' netscape or just
mozilla..
The Web site already provides information about compatibility:

| The current version of the PrefBar is 2.3.1, build 20041003.
| It should work with Mozilla 1.0 to 1.7.3 and Firefox 1.0+.
and this got me thinking about this, because a few years ago
I used mozilla and now am on netsape and really don't SEE any difference
between the two..
The difference is also the components of the distribution. Netscape 6+
contains an AOL Instant Messenger sidebar component while Mozilla does
not, for example.
thank you..

You're welcome, but please STFW next time. It is all there, for example
on <http://mozilla.org/> and <http://holgermetzger.d e/> (German-English
bilingual content).
PointedEars
--
"The clothes make the man. Naked people have
little or no influence on society."
-- Mark Twain

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>

Only true Mozillas should not have the
"Compatible " substring in their UA header.

<snip>

"Should" implies some sort of external directive or standard to indicate
what is supposed to happen. Nothing of the sort exists, the strongest
term dictating the contents of the HTTP 1.1 User-Agent header is "Can",
which leaves the entire contents optional for anyone to put in (or omit)
anything they like.

Richard.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>

Only true Mozillas should not have the
"Compatible " substring in their UA header.

<snip>

"Should" implies some sort of external directive or standard to indicate
what is supposed to happen. [...]

No, and if you would have read the snipped part, you would have known.
PointedEars

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>

Only true Mozillas should not have the
"Compatible " substring in their UA header.

<snip>

"Should" implies some sort of external directive or
standard to indicate what is supposed to happen. [...]

No, and if you would have read the snipped part,
you would have known.

Known what exactly? That you cannot say anything definite about what
should or should not appear in the user agent header? I already know
that, at lest well enough not to make any such assertion.

Richard.