Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Mike Jaques wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> As I understand it it is minute (in the less than 100k range). I may be
> mistaken of course.
I just zipped up the editor chrome contents. It's 220K
> > 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.
>
> Good idea.
Agreed. Making the editor separate to save 200K is a poor tradeoff, but we
should document somewhere why we made this tradeoff.
The editor .dll's themselves total < 500K, and as Ian has said are shared by
Mail and the HTML rendering engine itself. People have argued that a plain
text editor would suffice for HTML, so the reasons that tipped the scales
against this should also be recorded so we can stop having the same
discussions over and over.
There is more information about the editor at http://www.mozilla.org/editor/
I'd recommend that further discussion on the topic be taken to the
netscape.public.mozilla.editor newsgroup.
-Dan Veditz
