This just gets lovelier and lovelier.
(1) For some reason, sh isn't calling perl correctly. And various people in #mozilla have been fairly adamant that building Moz with MingW on Win98SE is a fuggedaboudit kind of situation.
(2) I looked at the relatively simple instructions for building Mozilla on Linux, and I'd have to agree with them...
(3) So now I need to buy a Linux OS and get it installed on my system. Because that's such a big leap for me (my experience with Linux is reading advertisements and computer magazine columns), I think I'll pay someone to actually set it up for me and get my Internet connection working via Linux.
(4) Of course, cash flow is a bit of a problem...
And why do I want Linux or for that matter a buildable Mozilla? Well, it's high time I learned C++ to do some of the cool things I dream of doing with the Lizard. I'm just a bit tired of having my hand held in understanding the Mozilla code beyond the UI.
Not sure that's a great reason to learn, but I'm fairly sure I need to do this.
Something funky is happening between cygwin, sh, and perl. I need help figuring out what.
I like the XBL anonymous content model a great deal, but there are a few questions I have unanswered.
I particularly like the proposed <xbl:element/> . If and when it's implemented, it would give me a lot of flexibility for defining new XBL bindings. You could have a node list represented by an element with the following anonymous content model:
<content> <children/> <element/> </content>
As I'm starting to explore C++ and building Mozilla, I'm thinking maybe this is something I should implement (bug 98712 ). But there are a few points which I don't think the XBL spec really made clear when it came to how the DOM treats these anonymous nodes and their relationship to bound elements...
I'd really appreciate any advice on what the blank fields in the document's final table should be.
Went to see "The Matrix Reloaded" today. Six words describe it best: "What the h*ll is going on?"
That's sort of the feeling you have going on throughout the whole film. Which, I'm sure, is exactly what the Wachowski (sp?) Brothers intended!
Oh, most of the movie makes sense. But I just can't figure out why Hugo Weaving's ex-Agent Smith (ok, I just gave away a spoiler) is back. They never really make that clear in this film.
About the only bit I felt wasn't necessary was the window-fogging scene between Neo and Trinity. Like we didn't know that was happening; it just wasn't necessary. I actually found myself thinking "get on with the story, man". But, I guess they have hundreds of thousands of young male fans to satisfy... and I'm only one among those thousands.