X
Tocca qui per la versione per piattaforma mobile del sito.

Forum di supporto

Questa discussione è archiviata. Inserire una nuova richiesta se occorre aiuto.

maff support discontinued

Inserita

It appears there is probably no way out. So this is more a cry of desperation rather than in the hope of assistance.

I realize this is free software and there is a number of people working so the rest of us can have fun and thank you for it. But you don't want only Hail Ceasar's, right?

However, I fail to understand the apparent sloppiness in the haste of releasing a new version that cannot -yet, I hope- support a major feature of the previous version. This is not like changing the symbol of favorites or the location of a menu item. This is completely screwing up a potentially huge collection of files scattered all over our intricate folder tree in our terrabytes of HDD space (for the vast majority of users looking for them in "downloads" is lame - no one really expects a user to have only 3-4 of those files, does one?).

As lame is the option of converting them to a multi-file/folder format (having a folder/subfolder/multiple files is ridiculous and impractical). Not wanting this is the main reason behind moving to the maff format (or mht for IE) in the first place. Had we known development would be inconsistent as this, we would have stuck with pdf'ing our webpages rather than trusting Mozilla...

In my book, not being able to support such a major asset makes the new version of Firefox inadequately developed and too immature to replace the current one and it will remain so until a way to support maff files is incorporated.

It appears there is probably no way out. So this is more a cry of desperation rather than in the hope of assistance. I realize this is free software and there is a number of people working so the rest of us can have fun and thank you for it. But you don't want only Hail Ceasar's, right? However, I fail to understand the apparent sloppiness in the haste of releasing a new version that cannot -yet, I hope- support a major feature of the previous version. This is not like changing the symbol of favorites or the location of a menu item. This is completely screwing up a potentially huge collection of files scattered all over our intricate folder tree in our terrabytes of HDD space (for the vast majority of users looking for them in "downloads" is lame - no one really expects a user to have only 3-4 of those files, does one?). As lame is the option of converting them to a multi-file/folder format (having a folder/subfolder/multiple files is ridiculous and impractical). Not wanting this is the main reason behind moving to the maff format (or mht for IE) in the first place. Had we known development would be inconsistent as this, we would have stuck with pdf'ing our webpages rather than trusting Mozilla... In my book, not being able to support such a major asset makes the new version of Firefox inadequately developed and too immature to replace the current one and it will remain so until a way to support maff files is incorporated.

Soluzione scelta

MAFF is a third-party extension, and the author has stated they are either unwilling or unable to update it to continue to support modern versions of Firefox.

http://maf.mozdev.org/feedback.html

There is a mitigation process at http://maf.mozdev.org/index.html to help convert your existing files.

Leggere questa risposta nel contesto 0

Dettagli aggiuntivi sul sistema

Applicazione

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 5.0.1; Tablet; rv:56.0) Gecko/56.0 Firefox/56.0

Ulteriori informazioni

Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1483 soluzioni 10251 risposte

Soluzione scelta

MAFF is a third-party extension, and the author has stated they are either unwilling or unable to update it to continue to support modern versions of Firefox.

http://maf.mozdev.org/feedback.html

There is a mitigation process at http://maf.mozdev.org/index.html to help convert your existing files.

MAFF is a third-party extension, and the author has stated they are either unwilling or unable to update it to continue to support modern versions of Firefox. http://maf.mozdev.org/feedback.html There is a mitigation process at http://maf.mozdev.org/index.html to help convert your existing files.

Utente che ha posto la domanda

Thank you Tyler. However, like I said, saving a zillion files scattered all over TB of HDDs is next to impossible. Furthermore, saving them as multiple files/folders each is not even close to a solution. The whole point (and only viable option) is to continue having a one-file format. I repeat I know this is a free program. Still, I think it is clear that Mozilla should have either undertaken the MAFF extension migration to the new version or found someone to do so. Again, this is not about the position of an obscure menu item. This is a major part of the browser with a huge database for most users that is being scrapped.

Thank you Tyler. However, like I said, saving a zillion files scattered all over TB of HDDs is next to impossible. Furthermore, saving them as multiple files/folders each is not even close to a solution. The whole point (and only viable option) is to continue having a one-file format. I repeat I know this is a free program. Still, I think it is clear that Mozilla should have either undertaken the MAFF extension migration to the new version or found someone to do so. Again, this is not about the position of an obscure menu item. This is a major part of the browser with a huge database for most users that is being scrapped.
Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1483 soluzioni 10251 risposte

I don't believe MAFF was ever very widely utilized, so very few people are going to be losing the extension, and unfortunately for your use-case it both isn't possible in the modern versions of Firefox and without the support the add-on dev decided to retire it.

I don't believe MAFF was ever very widely utilized, so very few people are going to be losing the extension, and unfortunately for your use-case it both isn't possible in the modern versions of Firefox and without the support the add-on dev decided to retire it.

Modificato da Tyler Downer il

CheckMate 4 soluzioni 120 risposte

Risposta utile

That's really a disgusting , absurd reply, Tyler. It's also a completely FALSE reply, saying that not many people used the MAFF format. It's not your job to "believe" or not believe how many people use it. And even if it were true, that's still a disgraceful slap in our face ! I've got thousands of files saved in the Maff and Mht format which cannot be opened. Your ridiculous workaround , to install Firefox ESR is NOT supported by Mozilla for a single user , and you're supposed to know that. I tried it, anyway and it doesn't even work.

So now we're literally stuck with thousands of saved files that can't be opened .except with very cumbersome zip files. As for MHT files, although they technically can be opened with Internet Explorer , the link to the original page , which the fantastic UnMht add-on provided no longer works. So , again, it's useless to open MHT files with IE because all the component files cannot be viewed. So I'm going to have to spend the next few months going to the original web sites and saving the page AGAIN !!!

And now, after being criticized for your absurd "Chosen Solution" answer, you have the damn nerve to insult us with your garbage about "few users" and blaming it on the developer of the add-on???? DUH No, it's Firefox and Mozilla's responsibility NOT to screw up the browser and literally create insurmountable headaches for thousands ( not a few as you ignorantly think), of users. And hundreds of thousands of users were using UnMht , so stop making up stories and deal with the facts. You're screwing your formerly loyal users. But I guarantee that you won't get the chance to do it to me again.

I'm switching to Chrome, which is the exact opposite of what you clowns were hoping for and I never intend to even try Firefox again. This the most disgraceful things I've ever seen any browser publisher do ! Thanks for one of the dumbest answers I've ever seen and thanks for nothing, Mozilla. Now go ahead and block me for telling the TRUTH . because I meant every word of it.

That's really a disgusting , absurd reply, Tyler. It's also a completely FALSE reply, saying that not many people used the MAFF format. It's not your job to "believe" or not believe how many people use it. And even if it were true, that's still a disgraceful slap in our face ! I've got thousands of files saved in the Maff and Mht format which cannot be opened. Your ridiculous workaround , to install Firefox ESR is NOT supported by Mozilla for a single user , and you're supposed to know that. I tried it, anyway and it doesn't even work. So now we're literally stuck with thousands of saved files that can't be opened .except with very cumbersome zip files. As for MHT files, although they technically can be opened with Internet Explorer , the link to the original page , which the fantastic UnMht add-on provided no longer works. So , again, it's useless to open MHT files with IE because all the component files cannot be viewed. So I'm going to have to spend the next few months going to the original web sites and saving the page AGAIN !!! And now, after being criticized for your absurd "Chosen Solution" answer, you have the damn nerve to insult us with your garbage about "few users" and blaming it on the developer of the add-on???? DUH No, it's Firefox and Mozilla's responsibility NOT to screw up the browser and literally create insurmountable headaches for thousands ( not a few as you ignorantly think), of users. And hundreds of thousands of users were using UnMht , so stop making up stories and deal with the facts. You're screwing your formerly loyal users. But I guarantee that you won't get the chance to do it to me again. I'm switching to Chrome, which is the exact opposite of what you clowns were hoping for and I never intend to even try Firefox again. This the most disgraceful things I've ever seen any browser publisher do ! Thanks for one of the dumbest answers I've ever seen and thanks for nothing, Mozilla. Now go ahead and block me for telling the TRUTH . because I meant every word of it.

Modificato da Tyler Downer il

Tyler Downer
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
1483 soluzioni 10251 risposte

I'm not really sure what you expect. Mozilla never guaranteed support for add-ons, maff was developed by a third-party, it is no longer supported. I understand that this requires work to transition, but Firefox needed to stop supporting legacy add-ons to continue moving forward. There is a reason no other browser supports the type of add-ons Firefox used it, it's not possible to have a fast, performant browser and have add-ons like that.

I'm not really sure what you expect. Mozilla never guaranteed support for add-ons, maff was developed by a third-party, it is no longer supported. I understand that this requires work to transition, but Firefox needed to stop supporting legacy add-ons to continue moving forward. There is a reason no other browser supports the type of add-ons Firefox used it, it's not possible to have a fast, performant browser and have add-ons like that.
albertofallas100 0 soluzioni 2 risposte

Risposta utile

Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement. Please, maff format in a great and should not die. Mozilla should take this seriously.

Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement. Please, maff format in a great and should not die. Mozilla should take this seriously.
the-edmeister
  • Moderator
5315 soluzioni 39470 risposte

albertofallas100 said

Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement.

I agree, but Mozilla never did have a "save page in one file" feature. Our opinions can't rewrite history. No good crying over spilled milk from a decade and a half ago. The MHTML format which was developed by Microsoft and proposed to W3C back in 1999 was never formally adopted. As am "orphan" format Mozilla just never adopted it for the old Mozilla Suite or for Firefox. Standards compliant has always been the "theme" with Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML

I used MAFF myself for a number of years after that extension was developed and found that the saved MAFF files didn't display too well in any other browser. Opera (the old Presto builds) and IE couldn't always properly display MAFF files, even though they both supported the proposed MHTML format. MAFF files seemed to display "stray artifacts" or corruption too often in IE and Opera, which IMO left the user open to a situation like this; where files that can't be read when the application that created them was discontinued, became incompatible with the host application that it was installed within, or "died" due to lack of popularity.

I switched to the UnMHT extension back in 2005 pr 2006 for that exact reason; my concerns over the MAFF file format being discontinued at some time in the future. The files that UnMHT generated always seemed to display properly in IE and Opera.

And the new Save Page WE extension does a good job as a replacement for UnMHT and MAFF for saving a complete web page (or just its current state) as a single HTML enhanced file that can be displayed in any browser. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/save-page-we/ Those saved files are perfectly displayed in Google Chrome and Vivaldi, where IE8 (the only version of IE I have) doesn't do such a good job, as would be expected with IE not respecting W3C standards back then and supporting current HTML5 standards.

''albertofallas100 [[#answer-1047779|said]]'' <blockquote> Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement. </blockquote> I agree, but Mozilla never did have a "save page in one file" feature. Our opinions can't rewrite history. ''No good crying over spilled milk from a decade and a half ago.'' The MHTML format which was developed by Microsoft and proposed to W3C back in 1999 was never formally adopted. As am "orphan" format Mozilla just never adopted it for the old Mozilla Suite or for Firefox. Standards compliant has always been the "theme" with Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML I used MAFF myself for a number of years after that extension was developed and found that the saved MAFF files didn't display too well in any other browser. Opera ''(the old Presto builds)'' and IE couldn't always properly display MAFF files, even though they both supported the ''proposed'' MHTML format. MAFF files seemed to display "stray artifacts" or corruption too often in IE and Opera, which IMO left the user open to a situation like this; where files that can't be read when the application that created them was discontinued, became incompatible with the host application that it was installed within, or "died" due to lack of popularity. I switched to the UnMHT extension back in 2005 pr 2006 for that exact reason; my concerns over the MAFF file format being discontinued at some time in the future. The files that UnMHT generated always seemed to display properly in IE and Opera. And the new '''Save Page WE''' extension does a good job as a replacement for UnMHT and MAFF for saving a complete web page (or just its current state) as a single HTML enhanced file that can be displayed in any browser. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/save-page-we/ Those saved files are perfectly displayed in Google Chrome and Vivaldi, where IE8 ''(the only version of IE I have)'' doesn't do such a good job, as would be expected with IE not respecting W3C standards back then and supporting current HTML5 standards.
albertofallas100 0 soluzioni 2 risposte

GeorgX said

It appears there is probably no way out. So this is more a cry of desperation rather than in the hope of assistance. I realize this is free software and there is a number of people working so the rest of us can have fun and thank you for it. But you don't want only Hail Ceasar's, right? However, I fail to understand the apparent sloppiness in the haste of releasing a new version that cannot -yet, I hope- support a major feature of the previous version. This is not like changing the symbol of favorites or the location of a menu item. This is completely screwing up a potentially huge collection of files scattered all over our intricate folder tree in our terrabytes of HDD space (for the vast majority of users looking for them in "downloads" is lame - no one really expects a user to have only 3-4 of those files, does one?). As lame is the option of converting them to a multi-file/folder format (having a folder/subfolder/multiple files is ridiculous and impractical). Not wanting this is the main reason behind moving to the maff format (or mht for IE) in the first place. Had we known development would be inconsistent as this, we would have stuck with pdf'ing our webpages rather than trusting Mozilla... In my book, not being able to support such a major asset makes the new version of Firefox inadequately developed and too immature to replace the current one and it will remain so until a way to support maff files is incorporated.

the-edmeister said

albertofallas100 said
Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement.

I agree, but Mozilla never did have a "save page in one file" feature. Our opinions can't rewrite history. No good crying over spilled milk from a decade and a half ago. The MHTML format which was developed by Microsoft and proposed to W3C back in 1999 was never formally adopted. As am "orphan" format Mozilla just never adopted it for the old Mozilla Suite or for Firefox. Standards compliant has always been the "theme" with Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML

I used MAFF myself for a number of years after that extension was developed and found that the saved MAFF files didn't display too well in any other browser. Opera (the old Presto builds) and IE couldn't always properly display MAFF files, even though they both supported the proposed MHTML format. MAFF files seemed to display "stray artifacts" or corruption too often in IE and Opera, which IMO left the user open to a situation like this; where files that can't be read when the application that created them was discontinued, became incompatible with the host application that it was installed within, or "died" due to lack of popularity.

I switched to the UnMHT extension back in 2005 pr 2006 for that exact reason; my concerns over the MAFF file format being discontinued at some time in the future. The files that UnMHT generated always seemed to display properly in IE and Opera.

And the new Save Page WE extension does a good job as a replacement for UnMHT and MAFF for saving a complete web page (or just its current state) as a single HTML enhanced file that can be displayed in any browser. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/save-page-we/ Those saved files are perfectly displayed in Google Chrome and Vivaldi, where IE8 (the only version of IE I have) doesn't do such a good job, as would be expected with IE not respecting W3C standards back then and supporting current HTML5 standards.

albertofallas100 said

Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement. Please, maff format in a great and should not die. Mozilla should take this seriously.
The maff format I accepted because I understood that it was a format created by mozilla and that is why they should not abandon this format without any justification.
''GeorgX [[#question-1180271|said]]'' <blockquote> It appears there is probably no way out. So this is more a cry of desperation rather than in the hope of assistance. I realize this is free software and there is a number of people working so the rest of us can have fun and thank you for it. But you don't want only Hail Ceasar's, right? However, I fail to understand the apparent sloppiness in the haste of releasing a new version that cannot -yet, I hope- support a major feature of the previous version. This is not like changing the symbol of favorites or the location of a menu item. This is completely screwing up a potentially huge collection of files scattered all over our intricate folder tree in our terrabytes of HDD space (for the vast majority of users looking for them in "downloads" is lame - no one really expects a user to have only 3-4 of those files, does one?). As lame is the option of converting them to a multi-file/folder format (having a folder/subfolder/multiple files is ridiculous and impractical). Not wanting this is the main reason behind moving to the maff format (or mht for IE) in the first place. Had we known development would be inconsistent as this, we would have stuck with pdf'ing our webpages rather than trusting Mozilla... In my book, not being able to support such a major asset makes the new version of Firefox inadequately developed and too immature to replace the current one and it will remain so until a way to support maff files is incorporated. </blockquote> ''the-edmeister [[#answer-1047888|said]]'' <blockquote> ''albertofallas100 [[#answer-1047779|said]]'' <blockquote> Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement. </blockquote> I agree, but Mozilla never did have a "save page in one file" feature. Our opinions can't rewrite history. ''No good crying over spilled milk from a decade and a half ago.'' The MHTML format which was developed by Microsoft and proposed to W3C back in 1999 was never formally adopted. As am "orphan" format Mozilla just never adopted it for the old Mozilla Suite or for Firefox. Standards compliant has always been the "theme" with Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML I used MAFF myself for a number of years after that extension was developed and found that the saved MAFF files didn't display too well in any other browser. Opera ''(the old Presto builds)'' and IE couldn't always properly display MAFF files, even though they both supported the ''proposed'' MHTML format. MAFF files seemed to display "stray artifacts" or corruption too often in IE and Opera, which IMO left the user open to a situation like this; where files that can't be read when the application that created them was discontinued, became incompatible with the host application that it was installed within, or "died" due to lack of popularity. I switched to the UnMHT extension back in 2005 pr 2006 for that exact reason; my concerns over the MAFF file format being discontinued at some time in the future. The files that UnMHT generated always seemed to display properly in IE and Opera. And the new '''Save Page WE''' extension does a good job as a replacement for UnMHT and MAFF for saving a complete web page (or just its current state) as a single HTML enhanced file that can be displayed in any browser. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/save-page-we/ Those saved files are perfectly displayed in Google Chrome and Vivaldi, where IE8 ''(the only version of IE I have)'' doesn't do such a good job, as would be expected with IE not respecting W3C standards back then and supporting current HTML5 standards. </blockquote> ''albertofallas100 [[#answer-1047779|said]]'' <blockquote> Firefox should have integrated the option to save in maff format and not as a complement. Please, maff format in a great and should not die. Mozilla should take this seriously. </blockquote> <blockquote> The maff format I accepted because I understood that it was a format created by mozilla and that is why they should not abandon this format without any justification. </blockquote>