Daniel Veditz wrote: > Matthew Thomas wrote: > >>While Mozilla may be the ISP's default browser, they can't afford to lock out >>the fraction of customers who prefer browsers which don't support XUL, > > > I find it hard to believe Hans's customers prefer a XUL-less browser or even > know what that means. So what do *you* mean? They want something faster or > less memory intense? Please don't use XUL as a shorthand for other problems.
I think he means: "they can't afford to rely on XUL for their operations, as this would lock out any customers who prefer to use IE, Opera, or any other browser which does not support XUL". You're probably right that few people prefer a given browser simply because it doesn't support XUL, but they may well prefer other browsers for other reasons (better support for a given proprietary DOM, pre-installation, whatever), and those other browsers are unlikely to support XUL any time soon. Mike
