In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jesus X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TommyBee wrote:
> > Yeah, it wouldn't make much sense to have a Mozilla-based composer
> > without actually being able to see what the pages would look like in
> > Mozilla.
>
> No, you're STILL missing the point. The reason the browser is integral to
> Composer is because composer is little more than a different way of feeding
> HTML
> to the browser. Rather than using the Necko library to feed HTML to the
> renderer, composer feeds it to the renderer. Composer is nothing more than
> the
> browser, with YOU as the origination point of the code (via a pretty GUI).
> Without the browser, Composed wouldn't work, it'd be nothing but some
> Javascript
> code with nothing to work with. Like Asa said, Composer is some XUL, some
> Javascript code, and some graphics. You can delete it with no repercussions
> on
> the browser, saving a few hundred kilobytes, most of which will be graphic
> files.
What I meant with my comment is that even IF it was possible to separate
Composer from Navigator, it would be pretty much pointless because most
web designers would want to use Navigator for testing the view of the
code. My understanding (and yes, it still may be flawed) is that the
core of Mozilla involves rendering HTML and other languages (not really
sure whether to say XML, XUL, or otherwise) and thus any component
requires the core to be installed. What I don't understand is the
integration of Navigator itself into this core, making it impossible to
install a functional browserless Mozilla (a Mail / News standalone
application, for example).
--
TommyBee
http://www.tommybee.com/
