After this, I rest my case... > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: vrijdag 30 november 2001 16:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: sharing microsoft experience >
[...] > Absolutely. Right now you can have Netscape and IE cohexist, but *NOT* > two different IE versions in the same machine. This is, IMO, a *severe* > limitation that OS-decoupled browsers don't have. > > > > I wouldn't want to be the one who requires IE 6 for their editor but has > > > to deploy it on a intranet where a two-years-old IE4-based webapp does > > > email and calendar. Have fun porting your wonderful XML-stuff over to > > > IE4! > > > > same goes for NS, and until there is a sequel to the yet to be released Moz 1.0 > > release we do not know what backwards compatibility means to the Mozilla > community > > (really no pun intended) > > Good point, but *at least* I can have the user install two different > versions (probably without even knowing: I could build my editor with > mozilla underneath but without letting them know. It's a choice, anyway. > Something that IE doesn't give me (you can't ask for a *version* of the > same dll in windows!) OK, as long as the user doesn't have to install 2 *browsers*. He'll be perfectly happy to install a CMS-client, but not a second browser on his machine. Furthermore, after many trials to create a browser-based (i.e.: forms, stateless, much screens to imitate a copy/paste action, ...) CMS client, I am pretty sure that the ideal CMS client should support *real* UI interactions (explorer-like tree view, drag & drop, stylized/wysiwyg XML/XHTML editing for rich text fields, the ability to search & sort on columns on each list that you show, preferably remote editing (for nomadic users)... I should read up on the facilities offered by Mozilla in this perspective - and if not, Java Swing seems like a good alternative to heavy plumbing on top of a browser framework, and a programming language that is likely to be in more proficient use with the members of this group ;-) > But I hate when they follow mafia-type business guidelines. I hate how > they ruined SoftImage. I hate how they tried to kill Java and then > reinvent the wheel with C#. I hate how they ruined the word-processor You haven't been looking at J# recently, or you would be even *less* merciful on MS :-) > An agenda which allows me, with hard work, to overcome all the obstacles > without requiring huge payments (as a corporation), huge political power > (as a government), or a huge ego, time and luck (to overthrow Bill going > to work for them). > > Sorry, but I find this ability to be actively responsible for my > technological future more appealing than any functionality they could > give me right now. This is politics - not to be discussed on cocoon-dev ;-) [...] > > > 4) mozilla is designed for portability and open standards compliance. > > > > come on - their XSLT support is severly lacking, the parser inside is ages old... > > :) what if I wrap Xalan C and Xerces C with XPCOM components? tell me, > how hard would that be? (ActiveState already does it). Uh-oh. Mozilla is cool. Cocoon is cool. We want to do something CMS-like on top of both. Let's use Mozilla. That we have to guide a Java-centric community towards C++ plumbing because a fellow-OSS-project is in dire need of an audience, I do not understand. > What I mean is that you can bet your ass the Mozilla community will not > use some proprietary extensions to open standards to lock you in, as I > would be expecting from Microsoft. Call me paranoid, but I don't want to > bet my future on Microsoft new open attitude. Yes, you're paranoid ;-) But not enough! Sun is equally bad, and so is each & every commercial entity that tries to abuse IPR-laws to make money. And MS is playing toughball because they are the only one that make money on *only* software. > What would you do, then? a java application? a flash object? What's wrong with Java? My two scenarios are: - a Java client app, being it Swing or SWT-based that behaves and feels like a native OS app - a web-based app that unfortunately will not offer the same useability as a real client possible alternative would indeed be to build a client app that uses Mozilla technology packaged in the style of Activestate, but for this, I believe the effort and shift of focus warrants this *not* to be an ASF/XML-ASF/Cocoon-project. > I considered all possible technological solutions available today and > tried to forecase their future. Mozilla is the winner, even if, > admittedly, has some limitations. All others solutions had some worse > limitations. > > Anyway, I'm wide open to suggestions. Thank you! Regards, </Steven> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
