Re: Some proposed package removals and additions

On 28 Aug 2000, David C. Mason wrote:
> Matthew Berg <> writes:
> > And, to be honest, I don't like the idea of shipping something standard
> > that can't (by design) fit in neatly with the rest of the desktop even
> > when its embedded as a component.
> Although I agree we should not ship Mozilla, I think this view of
> Mozilla is a bit short-sighted. First of all Mozilla is more stable on
> my machine than freakin' Netscape. 

I find it depends on what sites I visit.  Overall, it seems pretty much on
par with Communicator for me. 
> Second the Mozilla embedded widget is very stable, and despite the
> good, hard work put into GTKHtml, moz has much better support for
> todays internet (whether you like what people are doing with todays
> internet or not). 

As I said, my issue with it as much aesthetic as it is
functional. Possibly even more so.

For me, having one component that looks and feels differently from the
rest of the desktop, even including the applciation its running in, gives
a very unpolished, unprofessional feel to the desktop.

In other words, I'm worried that Mozilla is another Enlightenment - chosen
because there is no better alternative, despite it not integrating quite

> Last I heard GTKHtml did not even support CSS which I think is
> important as the people 'in charge' of HTML are suggesting its use
> more and more for style to help move people away from the over-usage of
> attempting complex formatting with just HTML (yet another reason why
> Netscape and IE code got bloated.. attempts at handling 'kewl tags
> d00d'
> I know that many docs people would like to have CSS help with the
> default display of the help docs.

This is definitely a concern. I'd like to see CSS support go into
GtkHTML.  But as I doubt my ability to help with that, I can't rightly
demands such a thing. :)
> I am all for our inclusion of Mozilla for Nautilus, but like Owen, I
> think we need to take great care to make sure we are not filling
> with Mozilla bug reports, they just aren't ours.

I'm all for it being an option, but I'd much rather not have it be a

And even if it has to be a dependency, I would be against packaging it
with Gnome for the same reasons I wouldn't want libc part of Gnome - it is
an outside project that Gnome happens to use.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]