Opera 7 beta & CSS property 'overflow: auto'
Geremia T
Thank you!
Sue Sims
<gerry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>is this property implemented in Opera 7 beta?
We are not allowed to discuss issues like this until a beta is
actually released.
Sue
Thorsten Meyer
news:hoqcnu43qrqo6ulno...@4ax.com...
So, go on and release a beta!
Than we can start discussing.
Please give us the first beta build of Presto
>
> Sue
Sue Sims
>So, go on and release a beta!
>Than we can start discussing.
>Please give us the first beta build of Presto
You're going to have to trust me on this: it isn't ready to be
released yet.
Sue
Thorsten Meyer
Ok, we believe you,
and hope that it will be ready to be
released "soon" ;-)
Thorsten
>
> Sue
Jonny Axelsson
wrote:
> > You're going to have to trust me on this: it isn't ready to be
> > released yet.
>
> Ok, we believe you,
> and hope that it will be ready to be
> released "soon" ;-)
It is. But our (at least my) concept of "soon" is obviously different from
many of yours, that seem define it in "before or after lunch". In the
perspective of the project's lifetime it is almost done by now, in the
perspective of something we would want to release it's really not ready yet.
You would not want the Opera 7 of today, you would not want the Opera 7 of
next week, and we would not want thousands of reports on bugs that are about
to be fixed anyway.
Jonny Axelsson
Documentation,
Opera software
Hans Wolf
Good points. Thank you.
Just please be more open like now and less enigmatic like typical. We
trust you all.
H.
Mark Allread
> You would not want the Opera 7 of today, you would not want the Opera 7 of
> next week, and we would not want thousands of reports on bugs that are about
> to be fixed anyway.
Right. Keep good hold of it until you've eliminated the obvious bugs. No need for public beta testing until you need more help in finding the hidden ones!
Is is currently in internal beta? (i.e. is it feature complete?)
Thorsten Meyer
news:1103_10...@news.opera.no...
Thanks for the clear information.
So we will be pacient and wait a little longer.
It would be nice to get more informations
or screenshoots of the current beta status.
Brett Tabke
The general format that a new software product release follows:
1- 6 month pre build hype: In selected interviews: "Yes we are
working on it" (aka: it will be six month until a beta.
dead silence
2- clued in software manufactures purchase strategic ads on selected
"independent news sites" like wired, and cnet to prime the pump.
(eg: bribery - it's the way the system works)
dead silence
3- pre launch selected release hype: Usually a week before the
product comes out the beta is released to selected "reviewers" at
news sites.
dead silence
4- full tilt hype. Any stray cat you can drag home.
Most of us thought we were at stage 3 because of the reviews. We
can see we are actually somewhere around stage 1.5.
I think we will be surfing Christmas sites instead of halloween
sites with Opera 7.
Irregardless, lets just give them the space they need to launch the
highest quality major version update yet. If that means a couple
months instead of a couple weeks, that's fine. I'd rather wait and
have a higher quality product out the door from the word go.
freexone
>
>It is. But our (at least my) concept of "soon" is obviously different from
>many of yours, that seem define it in "before or after lunch". In the
>perspective of the project's lifetime it is almost done by now, in the
>perspective of something we would want to release it's really not ready yet.
>
OK.... that's enough for now Jonny...
I've been tellin' em for months roughly when...
but...
before anythin' esle happens...
there are some unforseen specific events which are yet to pass...
and those last few little annoyances (is your bit close? :) ....
anyhow...
there's hints here & there & all around...
all it takes is they have to be found... ;-)
--
freexone
#
"obscurum per obscurius == IGNOTUM PER IGNOTIUS"
Chris Eaton
news:al5tt0$1mums2$1...@ID-2181.news.dfncis.de...
The last time I was told in this group that something would be "soon", it
was Opera 4.03, which would be released "RSN" (real soon now).
A couple of months later, Opera 5 came out. 4.03 never did show up
actually... I guess that was a couple of years ago now.
The moral of the story - If someone tells you it'll be "soon", come back in
a few months. ;)
--
--
"I have never understood the female capacity
to avoid a direct answer to any question."
- Spock
Chris Eaton
news:al5npf$krh$1...@mail.opera.no...
> is this property implemented in Opera 7 beta?
Sure, there's an answer to that. And someone could tell you.
But then look what happens:
- If the answer is yes, people get enthusiastic and we get more "can we have
a beta now!" posts.
- If the answer is no, people get annoyed and we get more "why don't you
support this?" posts.
- In either case, we've deprived somebody of having the opportunity to rig
up a test case when the beta does come out and be the first person to report
"yes it does do this!", or "no it doesn't do this!".
Hans Wolf
They actually do not have any competition that may benefit from more
sincerity. Microsift competition? Mozilla competition? No, Opera is a
thing by itself. And the more is said about Opera, the better.
We, here in these newsgroups are Opera fans. Please share with us.
Please be at least like Jonny, not as secretive as some others!
Hans
Staahl Kasthaug
GMT, j...@opera.no says...
>
> > > You're going to have to trust me on this: it isn't ready to be
> > > released yet.
> >
> next week, and we would not want thousands of reports on bugs that are about
> to be fixed anyway.
>
>
> Jonny Axelsson
> Documentation,
> Opera software
But in a fortnight????
--
Staahl Kasthaug
ICQ 45874444
W2K, Opera 6.05 Build 1140, Gravity 2.5, NIS 2002, The Bat! 1.61
Geremia T
news:al7k8c$qrs$1...@mail.opera.no...
I've used this property in my website and it perfectly looks with mozilla
and IE.
I thought this wasn't a stupid post because a "yes" or a "no" could answer
the question that many webmasters have: "I've to find a walkaround or I've
to wait Opera 7?"
Sorry for my English.
Chris Eaton
Well its not a stupid post, I wasn't saying that. Its a perfectly valid
question, I'm just explaining why nobody who actually has the answer is
going to give it out yet. Or at least, my version of that. :)
> Sorry for my English.
It seems pretty good to me.
Chris Eaton
news:21cfnu44c53sm3vpp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:01 -0300, "Chris Eaton"
> <tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca> wrote:
>
> > The last time I was told in this group that something would be "soon",
it
> > was Opera 4.03, which would be released "RSN" (real soon now).
> >
> > A couple of months later, Opera 5 came out. 4.03 never did show up
> > actually... I guess that was a couple of years ago now.
>
> the competition? :-D
I think thats why we've jumped version numbers so much faster lately. The
3.x series had 3.0x, 3.1x, 3.2x, 3.5x, and 3.6x.
v4 had 4.0, 4.01, and 4.02
v5 had 5.0x, 5.1x (up to 5.12)
v6 has had 6.0x (up to 6.05)
And there was actually a reason for Netscape to skip 5. Originally when the
Mozilla project started, they were working with the Netscape 4 codebase.
Netscape 5 was going to be a release based on that code, but it was decided
that in the long run they were better off to just dump it entirely and start
over. So the Netscape version based on that new code became 6.
freexone
issued forth these in-valuable words:
>I do not see why Opera people could not be more open with their plans.
I really don't think there's anything that is a "great secret"!
a little deduction a little public info. and observing mostly
over a 2 year period, is all I ever use...
(and the stars a clairvoiyant, a numerologist, a psychiatrist, etc...)
. . . . . . . . . . . .. and a fair bit of brazen Aussie. guesswork... ;-)
Dierk Haasis
> Please share with us.
Just for good measure: Pleased don't. If you at Opera think it's
right, then tell and share!
--
Dierk Haasis
http://www.Write4u.de
Assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. (Derek Leveret)
Hans Wolf
>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:56:13 -0400, Hans Wolf <hans...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I do not see why Opera people could not be more open with their plans.
>
>because people tend to be very, very upset if they say that they are
>working on something but it turns out that they didn't have time for
>it or had problems with it.
You mean they will drop Opera 7 like they have dropped Opera 6? ;-)
>
>we've brought it upon ourselves. if only people stopped thinking that
>leaked information here should be taken as an official promise...
>
>> They actually do not have any competition that may benefit from more
>> sincerity. Microsift competition? Mozilla competition? No, Opera is a
>> thing by itself. And the more is said about Opera, the better.
>
>look, maybe they want to surprise the world with fantastic features.
>maybe it's a marketing thing.
Yes, of course. In Italian comic opera there is a guy name Pulcinello.
He is famous for having great secrets and surprises. It is proverbial
now.
>
>> We, here in these newsgroups are Opera fans. Please share with us.
>> Please be at least like Jonny, not as secretive as some others!
>
>he hasn't really said anything. well, he has said that he won't say
>what opera 7 supports. that counts for something i guess.
He made an open, sincere statement. Something rare ... I thanked him.
H.
Tim Altman
<tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca> wrote:
[...]
>And there was actually a reason for Netscape to skip 5. Originally when the
>Mozilla project started, they were working with the Netscape 4 codebase.
>Netscape 5 was going to be a release based on that code, but it was decided
>that in the long run they were better off to just dump it entirely and start
>over. So the Netscape version based on that new code became 6.
Which of course shouldn't have been released until Mozilla
reached 1.0. In other words, Netscape should be on version 5. ;)
--
Tim Altman
roy...@myrealSP-AMbox.com
No SP-AM is good spam.
Mackley
>> look, maybe they want to surprise the world with fantastic features.
>> maybe it's a marketing thing.
> Yes, of course. In Italian comic opera there is a guy name Pulcinello.
> He is famous for having great secrets and surprises. It is proverbial
> now.
He's "Pulcinella", and his secrets are not realy secrets... everyone knows
them ! ;-)
--
Mackley - Italia
Hans Wolf
>
>>> look, maybe they want to surprise the world with fantastic features.
>>> maybe it's a marketing thing.
>
>> Yes, of course. In Italian comic opera there is a guy name Pulcinello.
>> He is famous for having great secrets and surprises. It is proverbial
>> now.
>
>He's "Pulcinella",
I thought "o" would be more masculine :-(
> and his secrets are not realy secrets... everyone knows
>them ! ;-)
This is exactly the point. Opera's secrets should be guarded as
seriously as Pulcinella's
H..
Adam i Agnieszka Gasiorowski FNORD
> (and the stars a clairvoiyant, a numerologist, a psychiatrist, etc...)
> . . . . . . . . . . . .. and a fair bit of brazen Aussie. guesswork... ;-)
...and a Dreamcast console? ;8).
--
O seksie, sekszeniu, seksolatkach...-> news:pl.soc.seks.moderowana <- :8)
Opera - browser dla hobbystów, entuzjastów i fanatyków róznej maści. Czy
już sciągnałeś swoją kopię? m$ chce tego zabronić! http://www.opera.com
http://hyperreal.info | http://szatanowskie-ladacznice.0-700.pl | SiRE^23
Chris Eaton
news:gp3inu48ndu137bkl...@4ax.com...
...
alright fine. If you're going to be like that, I'll skip my creative excuses
and fall back on the marketing one:
People would think that IE6 was better then Netscape 5 because the number is
bigger. As opposed to IE6 being better then Netscape 5 because Netscape 5
was a piece of garbage. (although in this case its Netscape 6 that sucked,
but we're talking about the same browser)
Christoph Päper
> "Tim Altman" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
>
>> reached 1.0. In other words, Netscape should be on version 5. ;)
And Opera 6.0 should have been 5.5 as was planned earlier for the
Unicode release.
> People would think that IE6 was better then Netscape 5 because the number is
> bigger. As opposed to IE6 being better then Netscape 5 because Netscape 5
> was a piece of garbage.
Someone could think IE6 was better than 5.5, but it is only with
Standards Compliant Mode toggled active, which isn't the case with most
current web pages in lack of a DTD declaration, otherwise they're the
same in practice.
Christoph
Tim Altman
wrote:
>*Chris Eaton* <tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca>:
>> "Tim Altman" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
>>
>>> Which of course shouldn't have been released until Mozilla
>>> reached 1.0. In other words, Netscape should be on version 5. ;)
>
>And Opera 6.0 should have been 5.5 as was planned earlier for the
>Unicode release.
I disagree. That was a *major* change which called for a major
version number change.
Chris Eaton
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 06:39:53 +0200, Christoph Päper <cri...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> >*Chris Eaton* <tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca>:
> >> "Tim Altman" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Which of course shouldn't have been released until Mozilla
> >>> reached 1.0. In other words, Netscape should be on version 5. ;)
> >
> >And Opera 6.0 should have been 5.5 as was planned earlier for the
> >Unicode release.
>
> I disagree. That was a *major* change which called for a major
> version number change.
That depends on who you ask. To most of us unilingual North Americans, it
was a very minor change, if one at all.
(and now the newsgroup has a collective moan in fear of this old
disagreement starting up again)
Tim Altman
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:43:16 -0300, "Chris Eaton"
<tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca> wrote:
>"Tim Altman" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
>news:k9meouk2jhntp085e...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 06:39:53 +0200, Christoph Päper <cri...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >*Chris Eaton* <tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca>:
>> >> "Tim Altman" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> Which of course shouldn't have been released until Mozilla
>> >>> reached 1.0. In other words, Netscape should be on version 5. ;)
>> >
>> >And Opera 6.0 should have been 5.5 as was planned earlier for the
>> >Unicode release.
>>
>> I disagree. That was a *major* change which called for a major
>> version number change.
>
>That depends on who you ask. To most of us unilingual North Americans, it
>was a very minor change, if one at all.
I believe those that decide the version number should be the
programmers. Take away any thoughts from marketing/management about
charging only for major version upgrades. Ask any programmer at Opera
and I'm fairly sure they'll say the changes from 5.12 to 6.0 were
major and justified a major number jump. In that way, I also believe
the jump to 7.0 is justified, considering the new rendering engine nad
mail and news clients.
Chris Eaton
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:43:16 -0300, "Chris Eaton"
> <tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I disagree. That was a *major* change which called for a major
> > > version number change.
> >
> > That depends on who you ask. To most of us unilingual North Americans,
it
> > was a very minor change, if one at all.
>
> opera 6.0 you will see for yourself. does a completely redesigned user
> interface mean anything to you? what about full png support? what
> about new css parser? hotclick, personal bar, panels? liveconnect?
> multiple instances? help files completely redone?
Let me see.
Yes (but it wasn't actually completely redesigned), yes, no (now that the
new engine is also done and the parser can be used to better effect it does,
but that wasn't the case in 6), no (I've wanted "open as URL" on the
hotclick menu ever since it first appeared, but I haven't gotten it yet. If
that appears, this will become a yes), yes, no, no, no, no.
Looks like the Nays have it.
> chris, you are usually a clever man, but in this case you are waaaay
> out of line. you seem to have made up your mind in advance about this
> without looking at the facts. is it because you didn't get dom? so
> what? look at all the other major changes. sum them up and you get a
> major new version.
The problem is that sometimes these types of changes get a major version,
and sometimes they don't.
3.5 was when CSS support first appeared. That didn't warrant a bump of more
then 0.29 (3.21)?
5.1 is when the windowing system got changed to allow maximized and normal
sized windows at the same time, as opposed to a popup either opening
maximized, or de-maximizing every other window. IMHO, thats a bigger UI
change then what was done for 6. Why didn't it get more then a 0.08 bump
(5.02)?
Opera's abilities didn't fundamentally change between 5 and 6, except for
Unicode (which is nothing more then a novelty for me). UI stuff is great,
but unless its been rebuilt, its not worth a new major version number.
(would you want to pay for another version just to get a personal bar and
hotclick on a University student budget?)
Fundamentally changing what Opera is capable of doing (like is happening
now) *IS* worth a new version number. Not to mention that the longer stretch
of a version lasting means that registered users simply get that much more
for their dollars.
> simple.
heh. You are right about one other thing, I have made up my mind already. I
made up my mind... what was it, around a year ago? Well, whenever I found
out it was going to be called 6 and not 5.Something (5.5, or 5.2, or
5.31337, whatever it would have been called).
Take my word for it, this discussion has been going on for a very very long
time. :)
Matthew Winn
> 5.1 is when the windowing system got changed to allow maximized and normal
> sized windows at the same time, as opposed to a popup either opening
> maximized, or de-maximizing every other window. IMHO, thats a bigger UI
> change then what was done for 6. Why didn't it get more then a 0.08 bump
> (5.02)?
>
> Opera's abilities didn't fundamentally change between 5 and 6, except for
> Unicode (which is nothing more then a novelty for me). UI stuff is great,
> but unless its been rebuilt, its not worth a new major version number.
> (would you want to pay for another version just to get a personal bar and
> hotclick on a University student budget?)
Isn't it more a matter of development time? Opera Software raises the
version number when they think it's time for customers to pay for the
development work they've done. I'd guess that Unicode was substantially
more work than the windowing system so they decided users should pay to
get it.
--
Matthew Winn
Chris Eaton
news:slrnaomaos....@snoopy.sheridan.co.uk...
Probably, yes.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. :)
It does have one upside though. Now to those silly people who believe that
bigger numbers = better stuff, IE is the worst browser on the planet.
They're still at a paltry version 6.
Chris Eaton
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:09:29 -0300, "Chris Eaton"
> <tri...@hiredgoons.REMOVE-THIS.ca> wrote:
>
> > > it does not depend on who you ask. if you look at the change log for
> > > opera 6.0 you will see for yourself. does a completely redesigned user
> > > interface mean anything to you? what about full png support? what
> > > about new css parser? hotclick, personal bar, panels? liveconnect?
> > > multiple instances? help files completely redone?
> >
> > Let me see.
> >
> > Yes (but it wasn't actually completely redesigned), yes, no (now that
the
> > new engine is also done and the parser can be used to better effect it
does,
> > but that wasn't the case in 6), no (I've wanted "open as URL" on the
> > hotclick menu ever since it first appeared, but I haven't gotten it yet.
If
> > that appears, this will become a yes), yes, no, no, no, no.
> >
> > Looks like the Nays have it.
>
> actual new features in opera 6. i couldn't care less what you want
> from the hotclick menu. the fact that it doesn't have it doesn't mean
> that the feature doesn't exist.
Actually, we are. You asked "does a completely redesigned user interface
mean anything to you?". I answered the question. You then asked if several
more things meant anything to me, and I answered those too. A majority of
them in fact mean nothing to me.
If thats not what you wanted me to answer, you shouldn't have asked the
question.
(and the hotclick menu mays well not exist so far as I'm concerned, the only
other thing I've ever used on there is copy. I do browse text files with
URLs in them on a regular basis, and Open as URL would save me from copy,
F2, paste, enter. That would be very useful, I know I'm not the only person
who would like to see it.)
> please stop avoiding the issue.
Well if they're going to add lots of features I don't care about, then
change the version number and ask me to pay again, its very much related to
the issue.
> > > chris, you are usually a clever man, but in this case you are waaaay
> > > out of line. you seem to have made up your mind in advance about this
> > > without looking at the facts. is it because you didn't get dom? so
> > > what? look at all the other major changes. sum them up and you get a
> > > major new version.
> >
> > The problem is that sometimes these types of changes get a major
version,
> > and sometimes they don't.
>
> nonsense. you have to look at the complete package.
Nah. Looking at the complete package would have to include mail and news,
which don't belong in a web browser at all.
> > 3.5 was when CSS support first appeared. That didn't warrant a bump of
more
> > then 0.29 (3.21)?
>
> bad example. opera 6 has several changes. css is a new feature, much
> like unicode. but opera 6 didn't get unicode alone.
How is that a bad example? CSS is a great example, that was a huge addition
to Opera. I suppose it was from a different era of version numbering though,
these days Opera changes major versions a lot faster then they used to.
> > 5.1 is when the windowing system got changed to allow maximized and
normal
> > sized windows at the same time, as opposed to a popup either opening
> > maximized, or de-maximizing every other window. IMHO, thats a bigger UI
> > change then what was done for 6.
>
> oh really? and what do you base that on? simply allowing windows to
> have different states is completely different from creating a new user
> interface mode with a new page bar etc. the change in 5.10 was minor.
> the change to sdi was major.
Alright, so basically the major UI redesign was actually just SDI? That
would explain why when I run 5.12 and 6.05 side by side, things don't look a
whole lot different (the buttons in 5 were more colorful of course).
Making a major change to how MDI worked is pretty substantial, and depending
on who you ask either more or less important then SDI (probably depends on
if the person in question uses SDI or not).
As for the page bar... the page bar in MDI looks remarkably identical
between versions. So no major change there, I guess you mean them adding one
for SDI? (wouldn't that be part of SDI and not a seperate change then?)
> > Why didn't it get more then a 0.08 bump (5.02)?
>
> it obviously doesn't matter how many points it's moved up. it
> obviously goes to the next available.
Well it does matter if the upgrade to that version is free or not.
> > Opera's abilities didn't fundamentally change between 5 and 6, except
for
> > Unicode (which is nothing more then a novelty for me). UI stuff is
great,
> > but unless its been rebuilt, its not worth a new major version number.
> > (would you want to pay for another version just to get a personal bar
and
> > hotclick on a University student budget?)
>
> what you are doing now is low. really low. your arguments are based on
> looking at every single feature, big change or not, and saying that
> separately, they don't warrant a major version number. that way,
> anyone can prove anything.
>
> you have to look at the whole package.
If the whole package contains a lot of stuff that doesn't matter to me, I
don't see why. They want to convince me that the new version is worth paying
for again, and stuff I don't care about is certainly not going to accomplish
that.
The same thing will happen with 7, mail and news are automatically tossed
out the window since IMHO they should have never been put in to begin with.
(you'll find quite a few people agree with that assessment)
> > Fundamentally changing what Opera is capable of doing (like is happening
> > now) *IS* worth a new version number. Not to mention that the longer
stretch
> > of a version lasting means that registered users simply get that much
more
> > for their dollars.
>
> unicode is fundamentally changing what opera is capable of doing.
> didn't the entire opera code have to be converted to work with
> unicode?
A good chunk of it, yeah. I'm sure that the new engine in 7 took a fair bit
of rewriting of other code too, but unless it actually does something for
me, why should I care?
> you are completely ignoring major new features and the complete
> package. you know, by taking things out of context like this you can
> prove anything. the ku klux klan looks in the bible and 'proves' that
> blacks are worth nothing. how do they do that? they take things out of
> context and pick out single, tiny pieces and twist it to suit their
> arguments.
See, now thats not very nice. I'm not the only person who thinks that it
shouldn't have been 6.0, are you going to say mean things about the rest of
them too?
(I suppose I could also use godwins law to make an easy guess as to which
comparison is coming next.)
> > > simple.
> >
> > heh. You are right about one other thing, I have made up my mind
already. I
> > made up my mind... what was it, around a year ago? Well, whenever I
found
> > out it was going to be called 6 and not 5.Something (5.5, or 5.2, or
> > 5.31337, whatever it would have been called).
>
> exactly. you seem rather narrow-minded, as you ignore all counter
> arguments.
Not really, I heard all of these counter arguments last year. It didn't
convince me then, its not very likely to do so now.
> rather than trying to twist all the facts to fit your opinion, why
> don't you match your opinion with the facts instead?
>
> > Take my word for it, this discussion has been going on for a very very
long
> > time. :)
>
> and it seems you are proven wrong every time.
Well you see, this is the problem right here. There is no universal law of
version numbering, people can call their software whatever version they
want. I could argue that it should be Opera XP and can't be proven wrong.
How do you prove that?
If I say that 2+2=5, I can be proven wrong. Its a simple fact that it
doesn't.
What Opera should be numbered as is subjective, it can be anything.
Believe me, if the only change in O7 were the new mail/news client, I'd be
all over that as well. Of course its not, there is some real nifty stuff in
7.0.
Manni Heumann
> I do browse text files with
> URLs in them on a regular basis, and Open as URL would save me
> from copy, F2, paste, enter. That would be very useful, I know
> I'm not the only person who would like to see it.
OK, so stop waiting. Here are 3 entries from my search.ini. Add them
to yours and life will be easier from now on:
[Search Engine 6]
Name=&Url without http
URL=http://%s
Query=
Key=u
Is post=0
Has endseparator=0
Encoding=
Search Type=11
[Search Engine 7]
Name=Url including &http
URL=%s
Query=
Key=h
Is post=0
Has endseparator=0
Encoding=
Search Type=11
[Search Engine 8]
Name=Url even without www
URL=http://www.%s
Query=
Key=h
Is post=0
Has endseparator=1
Encoding=
Search Type=11
I guess you will have to adjust the numbers (6-8) to your needs.
Otherwise this works perfectly.
Manni
Chris Eaton
news:amq1lm$7p4on$1...@ID-54749.news.dfncis.de...
Clever, thanks.
Does Opera still have a tendancy to overwrite the file on an upgrade
install? I had that problem before.
Lars Kleinschmidt
> install? I had that problem before.
Yes, Opera still overwrites search.ini.
Lars