JTK wrote:
>THE ACTUAL ***LOGIC*** OF MOZILLA'S EDIT CONTROL IS IMPLEMENTED IN
>***XUL****!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
>
>Holy Christ, good night Irene.
>
Well, no. The behavior of many widgets is defined using xbl, though.
>The point is that you'd have a usable email editor.
>
Worksforme.
>I do. Peter seems to.
>
Well, I'm sorry that you run into them so often. But I don't, and I
haven't seen a single complaint from all the 6.1 feedback about a mail
compose bug. (Yep, that feedback is internal, it must be a big
conspiracy! AOL is keeping feedback from and e-mail addresses of people
about its commercial product private!) And I haven't seen one in a
press review. And I haven't seen one from people in public feedback
forums like download.com comments. Given a choice between 2 and
thousands and thousands, I'll choose the latter.
>
>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.
>
I love data like this. Where is your data that supports this? I have
some. (internal...muahahahaha!! AOL/Netscape isn't releasing it's 4.x
stats either! How dare they). But you don't seem to. Just because you
don't use it doesn't mean tons of people didn't enjoy using it as a
light webpage editor.
But anyways, to answer your question, Mozilla includes an HTML editor
for a couple of reasons. One, people use it. Two, it serves as a giant
testcase for the html compose widget, which we need anyways. Three,
whatever your reasons are for wanting to remove it probably aren't
valid. (That is, it doesn't really suck up much additional engineering
resources, it adds hardly and size to the download, etc.).
--Blake
