RE: 2.4 Proposed Modules - 2 weeks left

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: Havoc Pennington [mailto:hp redhat com] 
> I do think it's right to include Epiphany in 2.4.

I agree, though I have some questions below.
 
> 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 agree. If epiphany didn't exist then we would eventually adopt Galeon,
trying to push it in the right direction, but we don't need to now. 

> 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.

Yes. And I don't think the future Mozilla restructuring will affect our
decision to adopt ephiphany. Presumably epiphany will use whatever gecko API
Mozilla.org makes available in future.

One thing does concern me. I'm slightly confused by the status of Mozilla's
GTK+ 2 port. Is it in the main mozilla development branch now? Is epiphany
using it? Will distros being shipping it in time for GNOME 2.4? I don't
think we can ship a GNOME 2.4 module that has a GTK+ 1.2 dependency.

Accessibility:

If I understand, Bill says there are accessibility problems with epiphany
that do not exist with Mozilla. This is a potential blocker. Can we have
some more information about that please? How might it be solved eventually?
If it is explained elsewhere then please just give us a URL.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com