Interviewed by CNN on 04/07/2011 18:16, Rufus told the world: > I do fully understand that in the case of SM I'm talking about a *brand > new* product - that certainly isn't "impossible" or "not allowed", and > there are a whole host of non-Apple branded browsing apps on Apples > store ranging from iOS mobile versions of Opera to iCab. Mercury is > garnering my attention over Atomic, and there is a Chrome-like one that > looks pretty nice to me too. > > It's just a matter of wanting to bring a brand new product to > market...if the answer is "no", then that's the real answer and I can > live with that. I'll just have to shop elsewhere for what I want, but > that won't (and shouldn't) stop me or anyone else from asking for what > they want.
OK, let me try to parse it in very small pieces of information so you can digest them: There are basically two things that define what a Mozilla browser is: the rendering features (speed, standards support and such) and the interface features. The rendering is defined by the Gecko engine. Apple does not allow an iOS app to have its own HTML rendering engine. Apps can only use the built-in Webkit engine, the same one Safari uses. Apple won't digitally sign a Gecko-containing app, and Apple won't carry it on the AppStore. The only way to distribute such an app would be through alternative stores such as Cydia. The problem is, those are a very small fraction of the iOS userbase. So it's a lot less attractive market. So a Gecko-containing Firefox/Seamonkey is plain out of the picture. Let's talk then about a Gecko-less browser shell, which would use the built-in Webkit browser. That's what is actually available for iOS, not full browsers. Atomic is a browser shell. To be worthy of being called Firefox/Seamonkey, this browser shell would have to offer similar user interface features to the other Android, Maemo, Windows, Mac and Linux versions. Otherwise it's not Firefox, it's just something different (and lesser) with the Firefox brand tacked on. A very big feature in the Mozilla platform is the extension framework, which allows customizing the interface and adding features. There's a large extension ecosystem already built. An iOS Firefox would be expected to run the same extensions available for other platforms or, at the very least, to demand few modifications to extensions in order to run them. Demanding extension developers to start from scratch on iOS-only extensions is just not the same. The problem is, extensions run on a framework called XUL. XUL is built into the Gecko rendering engine. The Webkit rendering engine available on iOS does not include XUL. The extension framework in Webkit is far poorer than XUL, in fact. There are several extension developers on record saying that they won't port their extensions to Chrome or Safari because these browsers lack the features the extensions rely on. So any browser built for iOS will NECESSARILY exclude both the rendering features and the extension framework that define the Mozilla browsers. So, Mozilla might make a browser shell for iOS and call it "Firefox," but it wouldn't look or behave much like Firefox. That's essentially what you are asking for. So I ask, what's the point of having it on the first place? There's another, more serious point. Mozilla is a non-profit foundation. It's not run to make money, it's run to fulfill the mission objectives stated on its charter. Part of its mission is to help keep the Internet open and free. Letting a corporation -- ANY corporation -- to dictate what should be the priorities in browser engine development goes against that mission. So, attaching the Mozilla brand to another rendering engine goes against those goals. Just to stay on an issue that is real, it's happening now: Web Video formats. Apple chose to side with the patent-encumbered H.264 video codec, while Mozilla (and Google, incidentally) defend the use of the patent-free WebM format. The Webkit rendering engine in iOS does not support WebM (the one in Chrome does, but it's different variant of Webkit). If Mozilla made a iOS/Webkit browser shell, it wouldn't be able to support WebM. Meaning that Mozilla would be lending their brand to an encumbered solution, one that they are opposed to. There might still be a Firefox in the future of iOS, though. But, unless Apple relaxes its restrictions, it won't render pages inside the Apple device. Instead, it would do something similar to what Opera Lite does, and pre-render the page in external servers. There's already talk of such a product, partly in order to offer a browsing alternative for phones with very little processing capacity (dumbphones). -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my HOLMES IV. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
