So, in todays moz installer or nightly zips it won't make a diff, but if
cruff can be dropped off specific composer chrome (css, js, images) of 500
kilobytes to one megabyte or more, then the dynamic installer for netscapes
installer gains an advantage down the road.
If its less then a 500 KB gain, you should footnote a readme somewhere with
such details, else you risk continuing to have people scream for a browser
only version, not understanding the underlying technical issues.
MJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike Jaques" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Why not a standalone browser?
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Mike Jaques wrote:
> >
> > Why aren't these completely seperated into a dll or something and
> > called by both program independantly?
>
> They almost certainly are.
>
> Note that the way Mozilla works, the browser, mail window and composer are
> merely different XUL files that the backend renderer displays. In theory,
> anyway. In practice we might not be so perfect! ;-)
>
>
> > I know it would be hard to simply "hide" composer during the install,
via
> > the UI as its part of the chrome, and you'd need two sets of the same
chrome
> > (unless its there is an ifdef type condition check in XUL) with minor
tweaks
> > for the composer links in the composer-crippled version, [...]
>
> That would be pointless though, same download size but less
> functionality??
>
> --
> Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
> Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
> +1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
> irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
>
