On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:30:06PM -0400, Clarence Verge wrote: > It seems apparant that Mithgol is NOT going to take the "decent" route > and get permission from Michael before proceeding to bastardize Arachne. > > I don't say his contributions can not be useful. But there is more than > one way to contribute. And we now have the risk of an illegal release. > > In the near past he was invited to help create some extensions to Arachne > and immediately began to REMODEL it. Once again, Mithgol has demonstrated > that he is not a "team" player. > > I think I speak for all when I say we want to keep Arachne as "classic" > Arachne with extensions and not as just another Bill Gates application. > > My concern is that it can become Arachne by Mithgol instead of Michael. > There are a lot of people out there who think browsers should look like > they are running under Windows. Michael's Arachne would never be that. > > There is also no real reason to implement FULL support for a lot of the > crap that's on the web right now. e.g. Https seems to be almost 100% > fakeable just by dropping the "s". > We don't really WANT the "s", we just don't want to be excluded, right ? > The same goes for javascript. Not much FATWARE required. > > Tell me, when the choice becomes Arachne by Mithgol with js or Arachne > by Michael and supporters with (some) js fakery, which way will you go ? > > Do you care ? > Should this "appropriation" of Arachne be accepted/tolerated ? > Am I feeling unnecessarily depressed about the end of Arachne ? > Am I trying to interfere in the process of evolution ?
There is "small" difference between "say something" and "do something". I say a lot, but I do not much. Probably, Mithgol do the same. Implement Java Script is not so easy. Probably, it will be easier write browser from scratch than add new features to the current version (I didn't see sources). BTW, istead of|besides printed documentation - sources and possibility to modify them for personal use will be better for registered users. https, JavaScript, plugins mustn't mean FATWARE. If everything fit on one 1.44 MB disk - why not? Witold Filipczyk
