git ssb

title: > Jukefox date: 2004-09-13 16:43 status: published description: > Why does no-one listen to you when you're right?

tags: Mozilla, Firefox, web browsers, software, being right

links:

• url: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
  title: > Firefox rel: related type: text/html
• url: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/extensions/update.html
  title: > Extension Versioning description: > Read before writing a Firefox or Thunderbird extension rel: related type: text/html
• url: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/extensions/
  title: > Extension documentation description: > The FM for extension authors to R rel: related type: text/html
• url: http://www.foxytunes.org/
  title: > FoxyTunes description: > Should've been called Jukefox rel: related type: text/html

<p>
It'd be nice if more extension authors read the <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/extensions/update.html" title="Extension Versioning for Firefox and Thunderbird">documentation all extension authors must read</a> and learned about the Firefox Version Format. A lot of extension authors seem to think 1.5 &gt; 1.45. This would be true if Firefox version numbers were decimal numbers... but they're not - they're a string of integers, each separated by <q>.</q>. So 1.5 is indeed <q>one point five</q>, but 1.45 is <q>one point forty-five</q>, forty-five is greater than five (no, really), so 1.45 &gt; 1.5. Of course, 1.5 &gt; 1.4.5... </p>
<p>
I suppose it was smart to market <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/" title="Firefox">Firefox 0.10</a> (whose release is imminent) as <cite>Firefox 1.0 Preview Release</cite>, even though some folk seem to think it's not a milestone... which it is. </p>
<p>
Meanwhile, with crazy autohiding controls and drag-'n'-drop placement - <a href="http://www.foxytunes.org/">FoxyTunes</a> 0.61 turns out to be a highly polished extension. </p>
<p>
Still, they should've called it <cite>Jukefox</cite>. </p>