
Firefox 30.0 - 01Michael10
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/30.0/releasenotes/
======
ToastyMallows
> Ignore autocomplete="off" when offering to save passwords via the password
> manager

Love this change. There's some good conversations in Bugzilla about it. [0]

[0]:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=956906](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=956906)

~~~
chrissr
This is going to cause trouble with several websites that use "password"
inputs for other sensitive data like credit card numbers and SSNs. The
discussion mentions that this is a misuse of the password input, but it's a
very common misuse of it.

The discussion stresses that Firefox is the third major browser to implement
this feature, but what I don't think they understand is that their
username/password detection algorithm is the weakest of the three browsers.

If I create a form that contains a dozen fields, one of which is labeled
"Owner's Email" (type=text) and another that is labeled "Owner's SSN"
(type=password) with several fields in between, Firefox thinks this is a login
and prompts the user to save this information. Chrome and IE are smart enough
to recognize that just because an email address and password field were
somewhere on the same form, that this isn't login information.

We've addressed this issue in the past by turning autocomplete=off for the SSN
field, but now we'll have to re-implement input type=password using input
type=text with some javascript. Otherwise, our users are going to accidentally
click "Yes" at some point when prompted to save their password and have the
form auto-filled for each subsequent entry.

~~~
jhasse
What about them wanting to save the field? Don't tell your users what to save
and what not to. It's REALLY annoying!

~~~
chrissr
Because the value will be different every time the user uses the application.
These are basically data entry people keying in paper forms all day.

~~~
jhasse
Why not use type="text" then?

------
JoshTriplett
I love the change to prohibit non-whitelisted plugins. Together with the
changes to Chrome to move away from NPAPI, hopefully we can kill off the
majority of plugins across all browsers.

If we can get it down to just Flash and nothing else, hopefully a few years
from now Mozilla's HTML5 implementation of Flash will take off (similar to
PDF.js), which pushes Flash inside the browser sandbox, and ensures that it
has no more privileges or capabilities than normal in-browser content.

~~~
bad_user
Even Flash I keep it on click to play. Doesn't bother me much, except when I
want to view YouTube videos and such and I don't watch videos all day.

~~~
carlob
ClickToPlugin on Safari is reeeeally good at finding the html5 alternative for
Flash videos. It's actually the only thing that's keeping me on Safari, if
only someone could port it to firefox…

~~~
Spittie
Greasemonkey + ViewTube
([http://isebaro.com/viewtube/?ln=en](http://isebaro.com/viewtube/?ln=en)) +
ViewTube Plus
([https://openuserjs.org/scripts/hamsterbacke/ViewTubePlus](https://openuserjs.org/scripts/hamsterbacke/ViewTubePlus)).

~~~
carlob
I tried those already, but It just won't work as consistently and as easily.

------
3rd3
I'm still eagerly waiting for per tab volume control [0], a per tab activity
monitor/profiler [1], the possibility to suspend tabs with practically no
memory usage [2] and more options for searching the browsing history [3].
Besides that I find it counterintuitive that a revisit of an URL removes the
entry of the previous visit. The result is an incomplete history. I wished
they would change that.

[0]:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728046](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728046)

[1]:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400120](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400120)

[2]:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675539](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675539)

There are add-ons for suspending tabs but in my experience not very robust
ones

[3]: Full text search and search operators for time intervals would be great.

~~~
pcwalton
Per tab volume control is impossible with NPAPI. Unless Adobe does something,
Shumway has to be the solution for that.

~~~
icebraining
Technically, they could set LD_LIBRARY_PATH (or equivalent in Windows) and
provide a sound API wrapper library that could control the volume. That sounds
overkill, though.

~~~
panzi
Isn't that basically what pulse audio does (on an application level, not tab
level)?

------
scott_karana
Wow, I'm surprisingly stoked about this change:

    
    
      Use of line-height allowed for <input type="reset|button|submit">
    

Firefox was the only browser who didn't allow you do that!

~~~
achisholm
Yup. The same goes for dropdown list '<select>' elements. No mention of that
in this release though.

~~~
bzbarsky
That's
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454625](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454625)
and the problem is that other browsers only sometimes allow changing line-
height on them and some sites are depending on that (non-documented, not
standardized) behavior...

------
xkarga00
This _Firefox is already running_ bug is really annoying. I love Firefox but
it's some poor UX when i manually have to shutdown the process.

~~~
01Michael10
I wonder why this only seems to be a problem for some people... It has
happened to me only once in the 1000's of times I have shutdown Firefox since
version 29.

~~~
xkarga00
But still once in 1000 times is worse than none, isn't it? And it has happened
more than once for me...

~~~
01Michael10
Well, I have needed to manually shutdown the Firefox process prior to Firefox
29 (every once in a great while) so having to do it once so far with the new
version is not significant.

I am not saying it's not a real issue but why it's more a problem for some
then others...

~~~
01Michael10
OK, now after my previous comments I have had to manually shutdown Firefox
twice today. It's a problem...

------
notjustanymike
Would it really be so hard to support a calendar?

[http://robertnyman.com/html5/forms/input-
types.html](http://robertnyman.com/html5/forms/input-types.html)

~~~
spankalee
I feel like a calendar input should probably be a custom element. There are
too many possible variations.

~~~
kencausey
I upvoted and tend to agree with you but I wonder if 90% of uses couldn't be
addressed through a relatively small (hah!) amount of CSS customizability of
the element.

~~~
Sharlin
Probably, if you only want to support the en-us locale. Of course, in the real
world that's not 90% of use cases...

------
jonaldomo
Am I only one who thinks it is crazy that all the web browsers look the same
now? [http://jmoses.co/2014/06/10/which-browser-is-
which.html](http://jmoses.co/2014/06/10/which-browser-is-which.html)

~~~
sp332
It's like asking "why are all these blank sheets of paper so similar?"
Browsers are getting more minimal because browser chrome just gets in the way
of the content.

Anyway they're not that similar. Firefox has a search bar, refresh button on
the right, and no greyed-out "forward" button. Opera has the speed dial
buttons. And Chrome would be the most "minimal" if it weren't for the
extension icons over on the right.

------
skrowl
Best browser just keeps getting better!

Hopefully this gets some more people over from the closed-source Google
Chrome.

------
leorocky
Firefox is getting more awesome with each update, but admittedly I'm kind of
liking Chrome's implement first, standardize later approach to new features,
which is why you can get a directoryReader in Chrome and drag and drop support
for uploading entire directories. I wish Firefox had that, but it's not a
standard so they're not implementing it.

~~~
kibwen
Both Chrome and Firefox have the same approach of implementing first,
standardizing later. For example, Firefox has had large swaths of ES6
implemented since 2006 or so.

Rather, it's not so much that they refuse to implement features until they're
standardized, it's that each browser maker refuses to implement the features
dreamed up by the _other_ browser makers until they're standardized.

~~~
leorocky
> Both Chrome and Firefox have the same approach of implementing first,
> standardizing later

>Rather, it's not so much that they refuse to implement features until they're
standardized, it's that each browser maker refuses to implement the features
dreamed up by the other browser makers until they're standardized.

I guess that's what happened with this. A Mozilla engineer explicitly argued
against implementing something because it's not a standard in this issue:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=782233](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=782233)

------
benjaminpv
Based on the notes in #812695[1] the longstanding text-corruption bug that's
appeared in past releases should be fixed thanks to a change in how the
layout's handled.

[1]:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812695#c414](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812695#c414)

------
bluthru
CSS scale transition performance is still janky on OS X. Are they ever going
to fix that?

~~~
st3fan
Please post a link to a site where you see that happening.

~~~
bluthru
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=847653](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=847653)

It should hiccup on Firefox for Mac but virtually no other browser:
[http://jsfiddle.net/K7Ukb/8/](http://jsfiddle.net/K7Ukb/8/)

~~~
JohnBooty
FWIW: On a 2011 MBP 17", it was silky smooth in Chrome, and very slightly
slightly less smooth on FF and Safari.

~~~
vxNsr
Chrome is fast and smooth, IE doesn't do anything.

but this is Win7.

------
aleksandrm
I love Firefox, but since I upgraded from 28 to 29, it has been crashing for
me on Win 7 on a daily basis. Looking in about:crashes I have close to 30
crashes reported. The moment I upgraded to 30, it crashed. _sigh_

~~~
johnny22
do you happen to have the extension HTTPS Everywhere installed? I had that
problem and disabled the SSL Observatory and it started working fine again.

Hopefully it will be fixed soon (if not already)

~~~
aleksandrm
Yes, I have HTTPS Everywhere installed. I will disable SSL Observatory and see
if that helps. Thanks for the tip.

------
cauterize
Does it strike anyone else as odd that they don't highlight security updates
as Chrome does? Example,
[http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/05/stable-
chan...](http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/05/stable-channel-
update_20.html) Maybe it's psychological, but I like the reassurance security
is a focus for Chrome.

~~~
st3fan
You can see the security advisories here:

[https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/](https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/)

~~~
pix64
[http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-
vulnerabilities/firefo...](http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-
vulnerabilities/firefox.html)

------
throwq
Still no keyring/OS password storage support? I'm all for storing all
passwords in the password manager (including those with autocomplete="off")
but anything that can read signons.sqlite has access to all passwords in
cleartext (no average user uses the master password)

~~~
tkinom
Are you sure? I just did a .dump on my signons.sqlite. The login and passwords
are not stored in cleartext.

ubuntu 13.10 firefox 27.0.1

------
arenaninja
There seems to be a bug on the dev-tools in the Network tabs, I cannot see the
labels that are normally at the bottom ("All | HTML | CSS ... "). It seems
that the container that's wrapping them doesn't have enough height to show the
text. This is on OS X 10.9.3. Anyone else having this issue?

------
AtomicOrbital
Why limit yourself to just firefox 30.0 I'm using their Mozilla Nightly
currently at 33.0a1 (2014-06-10)

~~~
st3fan
Awesome! We can always use more people using the Nightly or Beta channels.
Just be aware that you are not getting production quality code.

In general Nightly has been very stable for me, but sometimes things sneak in
that are annoying or simply broken. If you can live with that, then welcome to
Nightly! :-)

~~~
dfc
The only time I ever have problems with nightly is the first release of a new
version. I wish I could set a config entry to wait for the second release of a
new version.

~~~
enigmango
The Aurora release channel might be what you're looking for - it's between the
beta and nightly channels. I find it to be exciting and fairly stable.

[http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/channel/#aurora](http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/channel/#aurora)

------
Siecje
Why in the inspector does it convert the markup to xml?

So it adds < / input > etc

~~~
ahoge
It's a sort-of serialized representation of the DOM.

~~~
Siecje
I thought </input> was the proper way to write HTML.

~~~
ahoge
It's either <input ...> (SGML flavor) or <input .../> (XML flavor).

------
creatio
Anyone know if array comprehensions are also supported in chrome?

~~~
pit

        var xs = 1, 2, 3
        [for (x of xs) x * 2]
        SyntaxError: Unexpected token for
    

Chrome Version 35.0.1916.114

------
shmerl
Unfortunately no gstreamer 1.0 in official Mozilla builds yet.

~~~
dblohm7
It's item #3 in the release notes. [http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/30.0/releasenotes/](http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/30.0/releasenotes/)

~~~
shmerl
It's available as an option at build time (build switch). But it's not used in
the official Mozilla builds which are still built against gstreamer 0.10.

------
darkhorn
There is a telephone in Firefox Nightly.

------
mantrax5
It was only yesterday when Firefox was 3 and look at it now. Isn't it about
time we start telling it to get married and have children or?

------
kent13304
I've uninstalled Firefox since Mozilla ousted Brandon Eich

~~~
varkson
Sorry to here you hate homosexuals.

------
gedrap
While it's quite off topic, what's with FF version numbers? I mean just a few
years back it was FF 3, 4, 5, and while I am not using it daily, I don't think
it's a major change every time.

I guess my kids are going to use Firefox 142...

~~~
sp332
As scott_karana mentioned, Firefox has been doing "rapid release" since 2011.
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease](https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease)
There are 3 channels: Aurora (alpha), Beta, and Release. Every 6 weeks, stable
features are pushed into the next channel. So there is a new release every 6
weeks, and if you want to live in the future, you can use the Beta or Aurora
channel. [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/channel/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/)

Edit: do you really want your grandkids to be stuck with version 5? :)

~~~
nchapman
And don't forget about nightly:
[http://nightly.mozilla.org/](http://nightly.mozilla.org/)

~~~
Excavator
And the news-feed:
[http://firefoxnightly.tumblr.com/](http://firefoxnightly.tumblr.com/)

------
huhtenberg
Very nice, but those designer tabs from FF29 still make my eyes bleed every
time I see them, so I'm stuck on FF28. I wonder how many people are in the
same situation :-|

~~~
JohnTHaller
Only someone who is completely unconcerned with the security of their computer
since 29.0 and later fix critical bugs allowing for remote code execution.
Seriously, I'd recommend doing one of the following:

1\. Upgrade and use one of the theme and extension combinations to get a look
you want.

2\. Upgrade and just get used to the new look since it's similar to Chrome and
others.

3\. Downgrade to Firefox ESR 24.5.0 which IS fully secure.

~~~
FOAD
Blah blah blah, security! Oh, boo-hoo security!

If security is such a hot button worry wart issue, then it shouldn't be
permissible for Mozilla developers to bind minor UI tweaks to security fixes.
Firefox user interface changes should not be tightly coupled with essential
security updates, since they introduce the hazard of many users refusing to
comply with good security practices, simply because some asshole design wonk
decided to enforce their tastes upon millions of users and disrupt existing,
productive, habitual user interface behavior.

And by the way, it's absolutely possible to securely run an instance of
Firefox 28 in a read-only, sandboxed, firewalled VM, restricted to connecting
to specific trusted hosts.

Permitting a third party to control and modify your behavior by enforcing
automatic updates in a manner that does not match your schedule can be an
insidious security hazard unto itself. Organizations like Mozilla, Google,
Apple and Microsoft have no interest in and no concept of what might be hugely
disruptive to their end users, nor do they necessarily have any concept of a
given environment's actual security posture. They simply cry " _security_ "
and then rampage all over everyone's shit with righteous entitlement.

Nope. I define my security practices (including whether I run a javascript-
enabled browser at all), and I define my update schedule.

~~~
varkson
You should probably build your OS and all your software from scratch, cause it
seems you have a problem with using software that doesn't meet your arbitrary
guidelines.

------
cozuya
This is my favorite firefox specific "bug", still around in 30 I would guess:

[http://jsfiddle.net/rk7ke/](http://jsfiddle.net/rk7ke/)

Works fine in literally all other browsers. Oh well.

~~~
boobsbr
nope, doesn't work in Chromium 36.

~~~
unstabilo
Nor in Opera 12.

------
easytiger
So I guess minor updates are how we do things now.

~~~
sp332
Yup! Release early, release often. Linux (kernel), Gnome, Ubuntu, Firefox, and
Chrome (and lots more) are all on scheduled updates.

Edit: The advantage to rapid releases is that you can roll out minor updates
when they're ready without having to wait for big ones, and you don't have to
rush big ones for a deadline. If you miss one release, it's no a big deal
because there's another one coming right up. Release when it's ready!

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Rapid releases != rapid major version number increments. If you update the
major version number too often it becomes meaningless.

The Linux kernel is on version 3.15, for example.

~~~
sp332
Yes, it is meaningless, and they intentionally hide the version number now -
the download page doesn't even show it. But what could a major version number
mean? GNU Emacs was on version 1.x for so long they dropped the leading "1."
and promoted the minor version number to the major version. Ubuntu just
numbers their releases after the date, e.g. 12.04 came out in April 2012.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Quote from Wikipedia that expresses my viewpoint on the subject:

> In principle [...] the major number is increased when there are significant
> jumps in functionality such as changing the framework which could cause
> incompatibility with interfacing systems, the minor number is incremented
> when only minor features or significant fixes have been added, and the
> revision number is incremented when minor bugs are fixed.

