Gervase Markham wrote:
> Again, why does this require its own domain name? If you want to promote
> XPCOM, go for it - but expecting people to take more notice because it's
> www.xp.com or whatever rather than www.mozilla.org/projects/xpcom is the
> ultimate triumph of style over substance.
>
> Gerv
Gerv,
There are XPCOM applications out there that don't want/need/care
about a browser but scream for a modular, component based architecure.
This isn't about a web site. It's about a project called XPCOM. This
isn't a style-versus-substance issue. It is a political issue. I see a
logical
division here.
Quoting my original post: "perhaps its own website for example."
It does not REQUIRE a web site. I'm just trying to think of ways
to advocate XPCOM to a more general audience. We've got the
browser angle covered. How do we expand that?
Heck, why have a mozilla.org site? Why not call it
http://www.aol.com/netscape/projects/mozilla ?
Regards,
Rick Parrish
