In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Hickson) wrote:
> > You're only being sarcastic, right?
>
> Not at all.
OK. Sorry.
> > (Just yesterday, I had a seemingly simple page with per-spec layout in
> > Mozilla and then I spent time working around floater, indent and margin
> > bugs of Mac IE 5 and Opera 5.)
>
> Yes, we are probably the best browser out there at the moment in terms of
> standards compliance. But we are nowhere near the promise of "full CSS1
There are 19 bugs with the css1 keyword and either of the [HIXIE-P1] or
[HIXIE-P2] pseudo keywords.
(Of those, I don't believe bug 972 can be implemented on Mac Classic
without a complicated algorithm accompanied by a database.)
> and HTML4 support
Do you mean Mozilla isn't ready for 1.0 until bug 7954 is not blocked by
any open bug?
> and no blocker bugs in other standards"
Are there blocker bugs in other standards that will come and haunt
Mozilla if not fixed before whatever gets called "1.0". Are all such
bugs already [HIXIE-P1]?
> which it is perceived Mozilla 1.0 should deliver on.
However, each time Mozilla 1.0 is perceived as delayed (whether or not
there has been an official date) people who don't take software
seriously unless it has been rubber-stamped as release will think
Mozilla is less and less relevant. This makes it more difficult to
convince page authors that supporting standards and Mozilla is
worthwhile, etc.
If Mozilla 1.0 ever gets released, it'll be denounced by some people
anyway.
Among the open-source crowd, expectations after each perceived delay
have gone up. There's no way Mozilla 1.0 can meet all the expectations.
With more delays, the W3C publishes more Recommendations and the
expectations go up again.
Mac OS X users, Mac OS 9.x users, to lesser degree Windows users and to
lesser degree Gnome and KDE users are going to complain that Mozilla
does its own thing with the UI and doesn't have the right L&F.
(Personally, I hope that the Tokay and Q.BATi projects will succeed.)
Performance-conscious users will notice that, at least on slower
machines, Mozilla isn't as fast as Nav 4.x. (Whether Mozilla is
otherwise better doesn't have any weight in that comparison in
practice--even if it is unfair.) They'll complain about the FE being
built using declarative (XUL) and interpreted (JS) languages, since
compiled C code is expected to run faster than interpreted languages.
(This argument can be backed up by pointing at Galeon.)
> Just because everyone else sucks more than us doesn't mean we are ready.
It doesn't mean that development should be stopped. However, it means
that doing a release might still make sense.
> Imagine what a terrible way of working that would be: if you beat all the
> competition, you instantly stop innovating and improving.
Releasing doesn't mean stopping working for the next release. There's a
lot to be improved. For example, user experience parity (or betterness)
with IE and Opera would be cool.<ducks/>
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
