Jim Self wrote:
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.
....
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.
I agree with Jim here. Everybody tortures themselves (their software
teams) with the 'reality' that everyone has a different browser; I have
certainly agreed with such a catholic mindset in the past. But now I
don't think it's important; it wastes time, dilutes development
resources, complicates user manuals and documentation. And for what?
Development organisations have better things to do. I think it really
would be better if everyone just downloaded Mozilla and used it _for the
health applications in question_. It doesn't mean they stop using their
other browser for other things. I have Mozilla and IE on my desktop (ok,
I never use the latter;-), most people I know have at least two
browsers. And the cost of doing a network install of Mozilla is very
small. I don't see the problem.
- thomas beale
--
___________________________________________________________________________________
CTO Ocean Informatics (http://www.OceanInformatics.biz)
Hon. Research Fellow, University College London
openEHR (http://www.openEHR.org)
Archetypes (http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl.html)
Community Informatics (http://www.deepthought.com.au/ci/rii/Output/mainTOC.html)
