Comments are inlined On 9/10/01 3:04 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Fabian Guisset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I was asked to forward my mail about technologies and products, so here > it comes. Please give your feedback. > Thanks in advance, > -Fabian. > > > From: Fabian Guisset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:04:36 +0200 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [mozilla-reorg] Definition of technologies and products > > Hi everyone, > > There has been a lot of debate about what should be in /tech, /dev, > /products, /software, and other such directories. > Instead of giving countless examples which are always controversial, why > not settle now on a clear definition of what is a technology, what is a > product, what is a software, etc... We have to be future-compatible, but > we can't hold the website reorg for the simple reason that this or that > product/tech/software may be branched from Mozilla-the-software in the > future. The discussion is endless and we might as well use a flat > structure if we want to be entirely future-compatible. I don't know if this is the right message to put this under but I think that there's another thing that needs to be considered. There's another category of users accessing Mozilla.org... End users who are looking for the Mozilla browser (or who don't have a clue and are looking for Netscape 4.x or 6.x) Perhaps it would be a good idea to dedicate a small section of the site (maybe a blurb on the homepage) to the differences between Mozilla and Netscape and a link to the Netscape download site? > > Here is my definition of "technologies", i.e. what should, IMHO, go > under /tech > "A technology is an API that can be used as the basis for building other > technologies, and, when combined with other technologies, makes a > product. A technology alone is useless. It has to be embedded into a > larger structure to be of any use." The spawned technologies. If you take this then are you considering the larger structure to be a technology also? > Under this definition fall the following "technologies": > - XUL: It Is an API that is useless alone (without js, xbl, etc, it's > completely useless) and can be combined with other technologies to make > a product (i.e. chatzilla, Mozilla's front-end, etc...) > - JavaScript Engine: Matches the definition. It's pretty darn useless if > it doesn't have a DOM to work on. > - XBL: Matches the definition. > - DOM: Matches the definition. > - XPCOM: Matches the definition. XPCOM was designed to make other > technologies possible, try to use it alone... > - Style System: Matches the definition. > I still argue that all the W3C specifications are technologies and not > products (see definition below). P3P, MathML, SVG, RDF, XML Extras, are > all technologies in my definition of the word. The only exception I can > see is XSLT, since it can be build as "Standalone", i.e. separately from > Mozilla-the-software. Not sure what to do about that one. I'd still put > it in /tech. In the sense that you implement them and embed that implementation into a larger structure they match your definition of technology. However some people have to see a spec implemented to consider it to be a technology... Perhaps instead of saying a spec we can say the Mozilla implementation of CSS, P3P or whatever > - Necko: Matches the definition. Necko is imho a technology, I don't see > how it could be separated from Mozilla entirely. Though I could be wrong > for this one. You're right, it can go either way. I'm more inclined to consider it a product rather than a technology if for no other reason than to be forward compatible. > - XPConnect: Perfect example of a technology. It's used (roughly) as a > bridge between C++ and JS. > - LDAP. > - XPInstall. > - Other stuff that I can't think of right now. > > Here is my definition of "product" > "A product is based on, and implements a mix of technologies to form a > usable "software" on its own. Different products can have different > implementations for the same technologies." For instance, XBL is a > technology, but Mozilla implements it and combines it with other > technologies to form a usable software. > Here are some examples of products (imho, of course) > - Mozilla-the-software, including but not equal to, the Browser, > Mail&News, Editor, Chatzilla, ... > Each software separately, for future-compatibility > - Browser > - Mail&News > - Editor > - Chatzilla > - NSPR (though that could be a technology as well) > - Embedding engine > - NSS/PSM > - ViXen > - You get the idea > > So I agree this is still very fuzzy, but it gives a good basis for a > thorough discussion of the subject. There is also some "stuff" that > doesn't match any of the above definitions: > - Performance/Footprint > - User Interface docs (specs, ...) Performance and UI are directly affected by and directly affect technologies. That's the reason why I would group them with the other technologies as defined above. > - Internationalization. Product or tech? Contribution? Project? You're affecting components that use various technologies. > - Accessibility. Product or tech? Project? Technology. You're making changes to the underlying structure of the end-product > - OJI and other Java-related stuff. Is that considered a product or a > technology? In fact I don't know them well enough to say. > - Search infrastructure. Product or tech? I'd say tech. > - XPToolkit/XPFE: It's a set of technologies, but is it considered a > product? > > Well you get the idea again. I just hope, through this mail, to generate > reactions which will hopefully clear up the story of what is a > technology and what is a product. > Keep those mails coming. > -Fabian. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > FREE COLLEGE MONEY > CLICK HERE to search > 600,000 scholarships! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/9rHolB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > >
