Jiri Znamenacek wrote: > If I understand it correctly the main goal of Mozilla 1.0 are frozen > APIs because that's something we will live for a long time with. You > can bet there will be a lot of very annoying bugs but that's something > which can be (mostly) fixed with frozen APIs and simply is not so > important for Mozilla 1.0. > What's the problem A LOT OF people are seeing Mozilla as end-user > product despite the facts Mozilla stuffs trying to spread all over the > world and therefore bugs such the one you mentioned will be found > irremissible ^_^ > > Jirka >
I understand that, and yes I know the reason for the 1.0 is the API freeze and that Moz is not and end-user product. I also know that the product is not the binaries but the source code that may be licensed by companies for commercial products. The reason, as I understand, for the API freeze is to make it more desirable for companies who may want to continue development without fear of compatibility problems in the future. I also know that Moz 1.0 will be a basis of Netscape 6.5. I just could not imagine Netscape shipping a new major point version with this bug - and Netscape *is* an end-user product. I also know the 1.0 will be the basis of many other end user products who are just waiting for Moz 1.0 to be released so they can take advantage of the API freeze. Galeon, K-meleon, Chimera and Beonex come to mind. You may add that Red Hat and Eone include Moz in their products, and are eagerly waiting for 1.0. Being "not end user", as I understand it, means the product need not ship with plugins, need not have a polished UI, need not be user friendly, need not have associated GUIs for common prefs. It does not mean that basic functionality may be lost. The reason I understand why there are bugs marked 1.0+ is because there *are* standards for 1.0 aside from frozen API's. I was just wondering why the Minimize bug is not so marked. It has nothing to do with Moz not being an end-user product. Bamm
