Carlos Araya wrote: > 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/ >> >> >> >> >> >
Hi Carlos, Thanks for your answer :-) However it's likely it's not relevant anymore because it's likely that we will simply stuff everything in /dev (e.g. /dev/dom, /dev/necko, /dev/xul, /dev/whatever). Every attempt to categorize "projects" into subdirectories has failed so far, because of forward-compatibility, use of technologies in other places than Mozilla, diversity of the projects, ... If you have a good idea about how to organize the /dev directory that makes sense and that might get a chance to be approved by all the mighty people of this land, please speak up :-) -Fabian.
