Well, since you ask...
For me personally as a user, functionality seems to be the uppermost concern.
It seems that most of the work and discussion centers around standards
compatibility, and meanwhile basic application functionality is left broken.
Why is there no MAPI support yet?
Why does Mozilla "forget" how to drag-and-drop attachments (or even URLs) to the
composer window?
Why does the "Mark All as Read" work from the menubar, but not from the context
popup?
I mean, you can't even display your own preferences dialogs correctly, for
crissake. How will the business and user communities ever take this product
seriously when it's no longer beta software unless the basic functionality is in
place? Basically, if it doesn't WORK, I don't care how many web pages it can
display correctly. Maybe I'm just not getting a good sense of the work that's
being done since I'm fairly new to the scene, but the most basic functionality
work seems to be put off until the very last moment, when we suddenly decide it
had better be put off until the next milestone.
So anyway, it seems to me that the great majority of people out there are going
to look at the 1.0 release as a browser alternative. So, it's the function of
the apps built on the framework. But, that being said, a lot of the issues
relate to the framework itself ultimately. If the two should be considered
separately, perhaps a greater distinction needs to be drawn in the public mind
between the Mozilla browser and the underlying framework through site
organization. Maybe the two CAN'T be considered separately. Dunno. Any other
thoughts out there?
Brian
Gervase Markham wrote:
>>This is a short, unofficial document aimed at starting a discussion to
>>define more clearly the requirements for Mozilla 1.0.
>>
>
> It has been commented that I said nothing about Composer and Mail/News.
> There are primary reason for this is that I know next to nothing about
> these two areas, and they are not really mentioned in the original 1.0
> doc. Still, I should have cross-posted the message. So, folks, come and
> join the discussion.
>
> On that point, though, there's an issue to be raised. Users will expect
> Mozilla 1.0 to be a "function" release - a certain level of functionality
> and stability. Distributors may be looking more at API freezes and
> embedding stuff.
>
> Are we looking at the function of the apps built on the Mozilla framework
> for 1.0, or the framework itself? Or both? Where's the line?
>
> Gerv
>
