On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Mike Jaques wrote:
>
> A better question, why not?
>
> Call me a purist, but the main part of a program shouldn't rely on a
> sub-part.
So the web browser shouldn't rely on the network code? or the XML parser?
or the CSS renderer?
> Removing the dependancy _should_ realize a savings in download size
> once its incorporated into the dynamic NS installer that downloads
> only components to be installed.
We need to have the code which does an editor for <textarea> and <input
type="text"> input boxes. If you don't use the editor we wrote for
Composer, that means we have to write an entirely new editor -- which is
redundant, why write two totally separate editors?
If you agree that <textarea> and other text inputs on web pages and in the
chrome should share the same code, then the difference between including
the UI part of Composer and leaving it out is a few kilobytes (a few XML
files, a few CSS files, and a few JS files -- namely, the editor's XUL).
> Just because in the past the editor has always been part of the
> program does not mean that idea cannot be rethought. I just don't
> think that many people use the editor much anymore and it should be
> seperated. If people wanna give it a shot, it'll always be there.
But then we'd have to write two editors, one for Composer and one for
everywhere else that edits text (text input fields, mail compose window,
etc). That is redundant and means we'd have twice as many editor bugs.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
