<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firefox 2.0.0.15 fixes 12 security bugs, Firefox 3 not affected</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/</link>
	<description>Your source for Mozilla news, tips, reviews, and more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:31:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: steveballmer</title>
		<link>http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/comment-page-1/#comment-64129</link>
		<dc:creator>steveballmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/?p=1996#comment-64129</guid>
		<description>Riddled with bugs, holes and errors!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Riddled with bugs, holes and errors!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: asdf</title>
		<link>http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/comment-page-1/#comment-64126</link>
		<dc:creator>asdf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:42:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/?p=1996#comment-64126</guid>
		<description>The 4 digit is for cases where a security fix, or some important change would break extensions. So the extension developers have to update their code to support it. Starting with Firefox 3.0, the releases will be like 3.0.x, with the Gecko version being 4 digits: 1.9.0.x, etc.

That &quot;infamous security bug&quot; will be fixed in 3.0.1, alongside the quick release of 2.0.0.16, due out (almost?) together. In fact, it&#039;s already been fixed, since the builds that will most likely be 3.0.1 are already out for testing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 4 digit is for cases where a security fix, or some important change would break extensions. So the extension developers have to update their code to support it. Starting with Firefox 3.0, the releases will be like 3.0.x, with the Gecko version being 4 digits: 1.9.0.x, etc.</p>
<p>That &#8220;infamous security bug&#8221; will be fixed in 3.0.1, alongside the quick release of 2.0.0.16, due out (almost?) together. In fact, it&#8217;s already been fixed, since the builds that will most likely be 3.0.1 are already out for testing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Naomi</title>
		<link>http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/comment-page-1/#comment-64125</link>
		<dc:creator>Naomi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/?p=1996#comment-64125</guid>
		<description>Periodically 2.0.0.15 will not print. When that happens the Properties button on the print window is also frozen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Periodically 2.0.0.15 will not print. When that happens the Properties button on the print window is also frozen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: #1313</title>
		<link>http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/comment-page-1/#comment-64082</link>
		<dc:creator>#1313</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/?p=1996#comment-64082</guid>
		<description>So, does that mean that the infamous security bug in Fx3 (http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/06/mozilla-already-working-on-a-firefox-3-security-fix/) was a misunderstanding? I&#039;m still waiting for official explanation for this, and I was thinking that 3.0.1 will be released ASAP -- but not after almost 1 month after the bug was found.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, does that mean that the infamous security bug in Fx3 (<a href="http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/06/mozilla-already-working-on-a-firefox-3-security-fix/" rel="nofollow">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/06/mozilla-already-working-on-a-firefox-3-security-fix/</a>) was a misunderstanding? I&#8217;m still waiting for official explanation for this, and I was thinking that 3.0.1 will be released ASAP &#8212; but not after almost 1 month after the bug was found.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bush</title>
		<link>http://mozillalinks.org/2008/07/firefox-20015-fixes-12-security-bugs-firefox-3-not-affected/comment-page-1/#comment-64059</link>
		<dc:creator>bush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/?p=1996#comment-64059</guid>
		<description>a quick question : why they decided for the four digit versioning in the first place?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>a quick question : why they decided for the four digit versioning in the first place?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

