The largest problem, as I see it, is that Mozilla - unlike MSIE - has been designed specifically to minimize the power of the remote author, to prevent malicious web sites from doing harm. As a result, the capability to work "locally" with a "trusted" application has been undercut.
I haven't looked too closely, but it seems that there *is* a new plug-in architecture for Mozilla (it's just so completely different from Netscape 1..4 that it's led to the assumption that Mozilla can't handle plug-ins at all); that might provide an avenue for control from C, C++, Perl, Python, Parrot, Ruby, Guile, ad nauseum, if appropriate hooks are available. The XPI (cross-platform installer) system is theoretically capable of "one-click installs" of Mozilla components (it at least does work for skins); I believe the intention is for plug-ins to download the same way. It might not be far-fetched to imagine clicking a button in Mozilla to download a (Perl, Python, ...) interpreter (or compiler?) and the plug-in itself. As for "look and feel," XUL is of course "themeable"/"skinnable" independently of the XUL application itself. -----Original Message----- From: John S. Gage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sat, January 05, 2002 10:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: XML, XSL, Mozilla As I think about it, I recall, I think, Wayne saying that a browser based application is not good because you can't control the browser. But this is a bandwidth problem, not a "can't control the browser" problem. If you can download a browser in under 3 minutes to your clients, then browser based becomes very attractive. In fact, it's a way to empower the browser. My cable modem downloads at over 300K per second. It's unbelievable. If someone said you can have such and such key functionality if you download this particular browser "X", I'd do it in a flash. (And isn't this *exactly* M$'s strategy down to the last jot?) Hence, isn't the Mozilla project the key to all of open source software, if bandwidth is a non-problem going forward? Mozilla is (should be) the next Apache. If Mozilla is platform neutral, then who cares what the "look and feel" of the word processor is. Mozilla is the key, not Star Office. Please shoot this idea down, because I'm convinced it's accurate. John
