Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

[mpeseng tin it]

>-- Messaggio originale --
>Subject: Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)
>From: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
>To: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
>Cc: Ricardo Fernández Pascual <ric users sourceforge net>,
>	GNOME Desktop List <desktop-devel-list gnome org>,
>	gnome-hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>
>Date: 25 Mar 2003 15:24:09 +0000
>
>
>On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 05:03, Luis Villa wrote:
>...
>> Galeon clearly meets most of the standards of GEP 10- as you say, it
>> would be a marked improvement over Mozilla in most situations,
>> especially as we work to integrate the 'net and the desktop.
>
>FWIW, Moz 1.3+ represents a significant step forward in integration
>with GNOME-2.  The most recent gtk+-2 builds I've seen have impressive
>GTK+, theme, font, and ATK integration, though it's not 100% there yet.
>
>I think Galeon/Epiphany are cool projects and don't intend anything
>negative about them, but I do think that the arguments in favor of
>having a GNOME-specific browser are less compelling nowadays.
>

I think the advantages of Galeon/Epiphany at the moment are:

1 Native widgets (the native theme thing even if would work perfectly would
solve only part of the problem)
2 HIG compliance
3 Use of system prefs (proxy, toolbars...)
4 Simpler interface (Phoenix could help here)
5 Mime types/protocols integration

While 4-5 are going to be solved, I think 1-2-3 would hardly be solvable.
Having a native gnome browser in the desktop would help improving the integration,
the use of a common toolbar editor, lock down gconf keys, are just the first
examples that come to my mind.
In general I think that, in the web browse case, it's easier to mantain
a Gnome targeted version of the interface than try to integrate a multi
platform interface with Gnome, which IHMO would never work as well.

Just an opinion.

Marco