tradervik wrote:
> My two cents on Mozilla 1.0:
>
> I think the discussion has prematurely focused more on the details
> rather than clarifying the
> big picture. In other words, I think it essential to come up with a
> succinct "vision statement" defining
> the general purpose of the 1.0 release. Examples:
>
> "1.0 will be competitive with or surpass IE in terms of standards
> support and the user
> experience." (perhaps too ambitious)
It did that a long time ago for me, but that's personal opinion.
> "1.0 will replace Netscape 4.x" (still a stretch, IMO)
Calls for lots of guesswork about what it would take for Mozilla to
displace NN4.
> "1.0 will be a stable platform for further development involving greater
> participation from
> the open source community." (implies API freeze, massive documentation
> effort)
It seems to me that *any* non-beta release of component-based software
should have a 100% interface freeze. Otherwise, a lot of the benefit of
components and interfaces is thrown away. It doesn't matter whether
those interface are perfect or even good. They can always be deprecated
in favor of successor interfaces as MS has done with every version of
DirectDraw.
> "1.0 will be sufficiently stable and functional for people to use as an
> every day browser, mail and news
> reader." (0.9.2 is practically there)
I'd say it's been there for a few months for a large percentage of
people and a year for some of us.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
I've often thought intelligence agencies should recruit idiots, as
idiots seem able to infiltrate any group in large numbers.
