Tim Churches wrote: >If everyone's browser was based on Mozilla, then XUL would be great. But >the reality is that Mozilla-based browsers are never going to gain more >than 50% of the "market", and probably somewhat less.
Perhaps your projection of reality is correct. I am inclined to believe otherwise, but I don't think it matters much since Mozilla is cross-platform and free and easily installed and arguably better than any OS-specific browser as a foundation for advanced web applications. For professionals using serious web based healthcare applications, having Mozilla installed seems to me like quite a small thing to ask in return for increased reliability, better support, easier incremental development, and a richer set of features to work with. >Thus to support >XUL-based applications, you then require prospective users to install >Firefox or Mozilla. Actually, requiring that workers in a hospital use Mozilla to access the hospital information system does not generally mean that *they* would be the ones to install it. Even if they use their personal computers for the purpose, hospital IT staff could easily install Mozilla for them if needed when they check the computer and clean it of viruses, trojans, and the like. >That's probably a good thing for them to do anyway, Agreed. >but the whole idea of Web aps is that they run on a thin client (the >browser) which users are very likely to already have installed. I don't see the contradiction. Installing Mozilla or having it installed occasionally seems to me very little cost compared to the benefits of improved quality for web applications that you expect a user to work with for hours every day. --------------------------------------- Jim Self Systems Architect, Lead Developer VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself)
