Mike Shaver wrote: > 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.
Thanks for the clarification. I misinterpreted Matthew as meaning Hans's customers didn't want the browser itself implemented in XUL. -Dan Veditz
