Blake Ross wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
[snip]
> >>Because (a) it's not hard to plop down a standard Windows rich textbox
> >>control and start extending it (many of those text editors you mention
> >>are just frameworks around a standard Windows control, with some added
> >>functionality,
> >>
> >
> >So why doesn't Mozilla' news/mail reader do that? "Because we need it
> >to be HTML." No you don't, you need it to be able to edit text.
> >"Because it's not cross platform.":
> >
> >#ifdef WINDOWS
> >// Use perfectly good system-supplied text edit control and hit 99.44%
> >of the market
> >#elif MAC
> >// Use whatever the Mac has as for a text edit control
> >#else
> >// Use flakey reinvented wheel for the remaining 0.000001%
> >#endif
> >
> Well, it's in XUL for one,
THE ACTUAL ***LOGIC*** OF MOZILLA'S EDIT CONTROL IS IMPLEMENTED IN
***XUL****!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
Holy Christ, good night Irene.
> but anyways...we'd still have to do all kinds
> of weird sub classing to be able to do proper command handling, etc.,
> and I just don't see the point of it.
The point is that you'd have a usable email editor.
> Since Composer would continue to
> usea homegrown editor widget anyways (as I'm sure FrontPage does), I'd
> just as soon rather see the kinks in the widget worked out. Frankly, I
> use mail compose on a daily basis, and I hardly ever run into problems
> when composing...it's just that one or two bugs are especially annoying
> when you run into them, and thus get blown out of proportion.
>
Oh, well, if all Mozilla's email editor has is one or two bugs... come
on Blake.
> Also, your first reason is incorrect, of course html compose needs to
> support html ...
Yep, just as soon as non-HTML compose is working.
> as for plain text compose, well, that uses the normal
> (core) editor widget as far as I know (i.e that used for textfields in
> pages...if it doesn't, it probably should), and I never have problems
> with that.
>
I do. Peter seems to.
> >
> >I can't think of a single one that has problems editing simple ASCII
> >text.
> >
> See above; html compose does much more.
And yet it can't edit simple no-frills text.
> Anyways, you're right, I hardly
> ever do either, but that's all I can say since I honestly don't often
> run into problems with mail compose (when I do, it's with the quoting
> mechanism). This isn't some "mozilla rulz!" blind statement, I'll be
> the first to admit that editor never used to do what I want, but it's
> much improved now.
Granted, but it's still miles from even the NC4.7x days.
> I have, however, run into plenty of annoying
> problems using Outlook Express's html mail compose (which I used to
> use),
I thought Mozilla was supposed to be better than Microsoft's offerings,
not worse.
> and plenty of problems laying things out using some of editor's
> advanced features -- i.e. tables -- in FrontPage.
>
Which brings up a good point: Why does Mozilla include an HTML editor
at all? Nobody used it in NC4.x and nobody's going to use it in
Mozilla. Ship it as a separate product.
> --Blake
