Re: 2.4 Proposed Modules - 2 weeks left

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Hi,

I do think it's right to include Epiphany in 2.4.

Galeon vs. Epiphany
===

I promised the Galeon guys to try latest from CVS, and I did.
 
 - they are so similar that having two is just strange
 - however, for the differences I could find I agreed with epiphany
   80% of the time

I'm impressed with the efforts to actually design UI up 
front, including listing tasks and so on:

  http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/epiphany/2003-March/000470.html
  http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/epiphany/2003-March/000473.html

I think that's setting an example that many GNOME apps should follow.

I'll stay out of comparing the UIs in detail, since I'm sure that
would create a neverending thread.


Native frontends vs. Mozilla.org
===

Mozilla is not an option, it's being dead-ended.

The other option is Phoenix; with good native GUIs available, I don't
see much point in using a XUL frontend.

Epiphany and Galeon already work, I've been using Epiphany as my only
browser for months. So I don't think there should be a problem having
them ready in time for 2.4.

I would guess that for 2.4 there will be at least some features
missing (docs, perhaps; doubtless some button in Mozilla is must-have
to someone; unknown if accessibility will happen in time), but as long
as the browser is stable and usable I think it's OK to ship it,
because the value-add to users is large even in its current state. We
can iterate over time and fill in the remaining gaps. Including the
browser in the release will help drive that process.

Havoc