> It still makes sense to describe Mozilla as a web browser, even if it
> isn't 100% accurate. "Web browser" is succinct and easy to understand,
> while "open-source internet application framework" is vague and
> effectively meaningless.

I'm open to suggestions :-) Problem is, if we keep saying it's a web
browser, others will keep saying "why does it have all this stuff a web
browser doesn't need"? And it would be a fair question.
 
> The web browser component of Mozilla is the most significant piece to an
> end user.

This is another argument altogether - AIUI, Mozilla isn't *for* end users
(although they are very welcome to use it.) :-)

Gerv



Reply via email to