Re: Some proposed package removals and additions

[Matthew Berg <galt gothpoodle com>]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> > And just because GtkHTML itself is a widget shouldn't necessarily rule out
> > the idea of building a browser utilizing it, as Encompass does. 
> 
> It doesnt have to be about gtkhtml being the wonder widget. Its about choice and
> making use of the component model. Its aboput saying
>
> 'THis is gtkhtml - good for smaller hosts, this is embedded mozilla which  does
>  full 4.0 standards compliant dom, css, etc etc'. 

Understood, which is why I didn't say everything should be packed into the
widget.  

However, I still would say that it would be useful to have it support
display oriented standards, mostly for use in applications that work on
local static content - preview widget for HTML editors, viewer for HTML
e-mail, viewer for help files, etc.
 
> The whole point of a pluggable component module to an end user is controlling
> their environment. Picking gtkhtml on a small box is a glorified version of 
> choosing a blue background or vi as an editor.

I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence means :) But I agree with
you on the first.

My understanding of the initial proposal was to throw a copy of Mozilla
into the distribution, rather than just the moz-embed-component with
nautilus.  Which I definitely don't like the idea of.

And to a lesser extent I dislike one default component not following the
L&F of the desktop, which I think has been discussed to death already. I
don't have the time or programming skills to learn enough of the Mozilla
sources to even gauge how much work it would take to make it use native
widgets or build a new browser.  So, as always, its a matter of whether
anyone else is as anal as me and does the work. :) 

Matt