Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> OK, I know why... but, given the original Mozilla goals to be very
>
> fast and small: aren't skins in complete opposition to that?
>
> *Especially* small size!
No, because XUL was needed anyway for portability, ease of
implementation, and support for non-browser/mail/news applications.
> As a general principle, it is basically inefficient (performance,
>
> development time, feature completeness, bugs) to redevelop all
>
> controls that the native OS provides perfectly well.
No, not really. It cuts development time since you don't have to develop
separate frontends for each platform. It's not necessarily any slower,
since the native OS implements things in software in the first place.
Feature completeness and bugginess are mitigated by the development time
you save developing one set of code.
> As a first goal at least, wouldn't it have been best to aim for an app
>
> that had the basic framework for skins, but didn't actually require
>
> them?
Er... how would it not require them? by having an extra native frontend
for each platform?
> PS. The rendering seems to be very good, although ironically doesn't
>
> seem to have solved all the problems that netscape 4.7 had... but not
>
> better than IE...
*scratch* The difference seems to be night-and-day. The page rendering
is so far ahead of IE as to be beyond comparison.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
"If you torture a ballot long enough, eventually it'll confess."
--Alan Simpson
