<chrisn> |
our chat today is with
Mike Shaver and Dan Mosedale, talking about Mozilla advocacy... |
|
could you introduce
yourselves, and briefly describe your job with Mozilla? |
<shaver> |
I'm Mike Shaver, and I'm (ir)responsible
for developer and community relations |
|
I help people find the stuff they need
to get their jobs done, or help them find jobs to do. |
<CGI-BINux> |
I'm CGI-BINux, I'm a
part time CGI programmer and an unofficial mozilla advocate. |
<photek> |
hello |
<chrisn> |
dmose? |
<dmose> |
I'm Dan Mosedale, and I do various random
stuff. I started out helping with the IS side of things, more recently
have done some tool work, and am currently doing random stuff to
help push the browser out the door. |
<url> |
i'm Adam Hicks, a curious
end-user in oregon. |
<chrisn> |
ok, anyone else want to introduce themselves? |
<BenGoodger> |
Hi I'm Ben, and I'm
a Mozillaholic. |
<bergee> |
i'm bergee, just a mozilla advocate |
<TonyG> |
TonyG - Mozilla Advocate/unofficial
UK defender of the faith :) |
<Kovu> |
big time evangelist ;) |
<photek> |
Hervé Renault, mozilla
apprentice |
<chrisn> |
I'm chris, and I run mozillaZine |
<kerz> |
I'm jason, and i screwed
up mz's rdf file |
<jst_home> |
Hi, I'm Johnny Stenback, DocZilla developer
from Finland. |
<smfr> |
Simon Fraser, Mac dude
and editor person |
* Antisoche |
<-= also a Chris, essentially lurking |
<chrisn> |
ok, once more with the
instructions: |
|
after introductions,
if you have a question, type ? in the channel. You'll be added to
the questioner's queue. when called on, you'll get one |
|
question and a followup.
When done, you can type ? to get added back to the queue |
|
the topic tonight is
Mozilla status, advocacy, and Mozilla in the press |
|
ok, Kovu: first question... |
<Kovu> |
I noticed that the new Netcenter beta
matches the new Mozilla UI almost perfectly. I'm confused because
I assumed Mozilla's UIs was not NS's |
<shaver> |
I can't really comment
on the Netcenter UI |
|
much of the UI work
on Mozilla is done by Netscape engineers |
|
and if they make a web
site that looks like Mozilla, more power to them =) |
<chrisn> |
kovu: followup? |
<Kovu> |
Cool |
<chrisn> |
ok, next question from kerz: |
<kerz> |
Does mozilla support
XML? |
<chrisn> |
:) |
<shaver> |
heh |
<dmose> |
yes. |
<Ben_Goodger> |
(lol) |
<kerz> |
Ok, just checking. |
<shaver> |
I think the only version
of Mozilla that doesn't support XML very well indeed is whatever
build Jesse Berst cons'd up |
<dmose> |
specificly, it includes the James Clark's
expat parser. |
<shaver> |
I haven't been able
to get my hands on it to verify, though. |
<dmose> |
and the UI itself is XML-based. |
<chrisn> |
kerz: followup? |
<kerz> |
nope |
<chrisn> |
next question from smfr: |
<smfr> |
there's been a lot of marketing spin about
the size and performance of the browser ("small and fast") |
|
is this spin justified? |
<shaver> |
(is spin ever justified?) |
<smfr> |
should I rephrase? |
<shaver> |
OK, so there are a lot
of things wrapped up in the phrase ``small and fast'' |
|
no, that's OK |
|
I know what you mean |
|
we all certainly want
Mozilla to be infinitely small and infinitely fast |
|
how are we doing so
far? |
<bergee> |
very good |
|
(imho that is |
<shaver> |
our download size is
about 5M, which is much better than our predecessor (4.x) |
|
our memory footprint
size is larger |
|
right now, for example,
our layout engine has an overhead of about 14 * character-data-size |
|
Word has about 12, and
the layout team has plans to get it down to 8 or 9 |
|
so that would likely
mean about a 30% memory footprint drop if we can pull it off |
<dmose> |
one piece of the puzzle has to do with
modularity, too: now you can build a browser which doesn't necessarily
have code for extensions that you don't use. |
<shaver> |
yes, that's very true |
|
I think speed is the
more interesting discussion |
|
when it comes down to
how many CPU cycles are needed to display a given page, I don't
think we can _ever_ get faster than 4.x |
|
the reason is simple:
we're doing a lot more work, in terms of correctly applying CSS
and building a DOM for manipulation |
<smfr> |
right |
<shaver> |
percieved speed, though,
is another battle entirely |
|
and I think that things
like incremental flow-and-reflow will let us kick 4.x all over the
map there |
<smfr> |
yes |
<shaver> |
the last speed issue
-- and I know this one near and dear to smfr's heart -- is startup
speed |
|
right now, we're pretty
miserable |
|
some of that is the
cost of the high degree of modularity |
<Waldo> |
Sorry I'm late :) |
<smfr> |
right, but there are
still gains to be had at startup |
<shaver> |
but some of that is just waste, I'm sure,
so we're working hard on getting rid of those |
|
hey! |
|
you knew the answer! |
<smfr> |
that was a good answer,
shaver, thanks. |
<shaver> |
you were setting me up! |
|
I think that the Mozilla 5.0 alpha will
be about a 3M download on Linux (including mailnews) |
<smfr> |
ok, thanks! |
<shaver> |
memory footprint will probably be 15-20M,
I fear, but maybe less |
<Antisoche> |
/? |
<shaver> |
(sorry for the long answer) |
<chrisn> |
smfr: followip? |
<shaver> |
he better not |
<smfr> |
I agree with everything
shaver said, and am glad to hear that layout are still working hard
on footprint issues |
<chrisn> |
followup, that is |
|
ok, next questioner, TonyG |
<TonyG> |
I run a popular UK site
were I plug Moz as often as possible. It would be cool if there
was an "official" 'Try Mozilla Now' logo or suchlike. Nothing like
free advertising :). Any chance of this? |
<shaver> |
ok, this is good |
|
that's a marketing question |
|
I like those, believe it or not |
|
there's a big hole in the Mozilla Story
right now, and its name is Marketing |
|
we need to do a _much_ better job of branding
and proselytizing our technology |
|
we do a pretty good job with developers,
I think |
<dmose> |
FWIW, there are already
some banners at http://www.mozilla.org/banners.html, and you're
free to use any of those. |
<shaver> |
that's very true; I'd forgotten about
those |
|
one thing I _don't_ want is ``best viewed
with Mozilla'' |
|
I would much rather see ``best viewed
with standards-compliant browsers'' |
|
some day, I hope, that won't mean just
Mozilla =) |
<dmose> |
errg.. i mistyped: <http://www.mozilla.org/banners/> |
<chrisn> |
TonyG: followup? |
<TonyG> |
Generally something
to go on sites to raise awareness of Mozilla for those philistines
out there is needed IMO. |
<shaver> |
yes. |
|
make some buttons =) |
<TonyG> |
www.nomad-jedi.com has
an icon i did based on the Throbber, for example. |
|
:) |
<shaver> |
ok, thanks |
<chrisn> |
ok, next questioner
is me: |
|
could you go into a
little detail about the march towards beta, and when you expect
that to happen, based on the current state of moz? |
|
12/15 was the last estimated
date for some sort of beta that I know of... |
<shaver> |
ok, it's time for the schedule dance |
|
M11 is basically now; the builds go to
QA today or tomorrow |
|
12/15 is a very very special date |
<Kovu> |
:) |
<shaver> |
on that date, The Lizard Willing, we will
be releasing the Mozilla Alpha |
|
``why not a beta?'' |
|
it's really quite simple: |
|
``beta'' means ``feature complete'' |
|
since we honestly don't know exactly which
features will be in Mozilla 5.0, we can't be feature complete yet |
|
you can also think of the Alpha as a ``developer
preview'' |
|
we want to get something nice and pretty
and stable out there so that people can use it as a base for developing
their own plugins or applications with Mozilla technology |
|
``ok, fine, when's the damned beta?'' |
|
if all goes according to plan, I think
the beta will be in mid-February |
|
I want a beta for my birthday, which is
the 17th |
<dmose> |
specifically, we want
to get something that's more or less usable as a day-to-day browser
out, in order to help attract more folks to play around with the
code. |
<shaver> |
right |
<dmose> |
(referring to the alpha
here) |
<shaver> |
I think we're going to get a huge amount
of excellent feedback from the Alpha, and we'll need about 2 months
to process it all) |
|
we actually have a new person on the mozilla.org
team who's going to help us handle all that feedback |
|
her name is Christine Begle, and she's
actually on vacation until the new year, but I think she's going
to be a huge part of our Alpha/Beta success |
|
(and there _will_ be success. don't make
me come over there.) |
* dmose |
chuckles |
<shaver> |
I don't think I can really give a meaningful
date for a final release, unfortunately |
<kerz> |
End of next year? |
<shaver> |
I want to, but the alpha->beta->beyond
period is too scary (in a good way) to make guesses right now |
|
I hope that helped. |
|
oh, before that |
|
god, man |
<chrisn> |
so, followup: you think
that 12/15 will reach dogfood? |
<MattyT> |
end of 22nd century? |
<shaver> |
well, dogfood is a really
tricky word |
|
there's been a lot of
confusion about it, and some of that is my fault |
|
there is a project within
netscape to get to a ``dogfood'' point |
|
(where ``Netscape dogfood''
is obviously a Netscape criterion) |
|
I think that the things
that Netscape needs for dogfood are pretty much the same things
that Mozilla needs for Alpha/Developer Preview |
|
so we're on the same
track, and all is well |
<chrisn> |
ok |
|
next questioner is Antisoche: |
<Antisoche> |
hi -- |
|
I wonder if theres anything
"you would have done differently" and |
|
What is in store for
6.0? Any major goals like CSS2, etc? |
<shaver> |
hey! |
|
that's two questions! |
|
=) |
<Antisoche> |
or is it just _way_
too early? |
|
three =) |
<shaver> |
what would I have done differently? |
<Antisoche> |
I don't really know.
You can skip that if you'd like |
<shaver> |
it's ok |
|
hindsight is 20/20, if not better, so
I think one thing is to have started on the SeaMonkey plan earlier |
* uberfloss |
is away, bbl |
<shaver> |
we didn't know that we needed to do that,
so it's not really something I think of as a mistake, but that might
have been nice |
<dmose> |
right. if we could have
convinced Netscape to avoid doing a 4.5 release and focus on the
free source earlier, that would have been nice. |
<shaver> |
yes, but that's not really a Mozilla decision |
<dmose> |
but they had contractual
obligations, unfortunately. |
|
shaver: true enough. |
<shaver> |
I'm not sure; I think I might be too close
to the process right now to give a good answer to that. |
|
so let's get to 6.0; that's a fun question |
<MattyT> |
hopefully we'll nuke
all the most popular rfes ... |
<shaver> |
one of the things that our architecture
gives us is the ability to release different pieces at different
times |
|
so I'm not sure what ``Mozilla 6.0'' means |
<dmose> |
well, one thing that's
related to that.. |
<shaver> |
``Mozilla 5.0'' is an important baseline,
starting-point release for all the components, and the people using
them |
<Waldo> |
It's really a 1.0, I
think :) |
<Antisoche> |
Well, presuming that "mozilla" is 5, the
question is just "what next" Obviously you can't put everything
in Moz 1.0, so kinda "what got cut". I just didn't want to type
so much |
<dmose> |
is that right now too
many of the interfaces in Gecko are currently internal private interfaces.
we'd like them to be more modularized |
<chrisn> |
(hold off adding yourself to the queue
- we have a lot of people to get through. we'll add more after we
get through this list) |
<shaver> |
some things, like XUL2.0
and CSS2/3 and some new modularity hooks in layout, are obvious
candidates |
<dmose> |
for the sake of (eg) the MathML folks
before the next major browser release |
<shaver> |
there's lots of little
things that fell off the 5.0 train, and we need to spend some time
getting those cleaned up |
|
maybe that's for 5.1? |
|
one thing that I really
want to have in 6.0 is a shorter schedule |
<chrisn> |
:) |
<shaver> |
the next time around,
we're going to know a lot more about developing with this technology,
and this process |
|
so I'd like to see a
6.0 entering beta around the end of 2000 |
|
(another maybe-not-in-5.0,
for-sure-in-6.0 thing is better remote chrome stuff) |
<chrisn> |
ok, next questioner's Kovu: |
<Kovu> |
I'm curious how you'll
deal with incompatibility with IE. Is an ActiveX solution a priority
or do you guys give much of a rodent's arse? Personally I would
hope you would try to convince people not to support that crap by
not including compatibility. |
<dmose> |
so there is in fact already an ActiveX
plugin for Communicator |
|
and the old Communicator plugin interface
will continue to work in Mozilla |
|
so it's possible that things are ok with
that right now. |
|
i don't know whether anyone has tried
it in recent builds. |
<shaver> |
ActiveX, and other non-standard-but-common
web technologies, make for a fun discussion |
|
on the one hand, Mozilla
very much wants to promote standard-friendly solutions to problems |
<MattyT> |
ActiveX is a standard, just a very bad
one =) |
<zinebot> |
SeaMonkey changed state
from Close to Open |
<shaver> |
on the other, we're very much into flexibility |
|
I think that all the pieces are in place
for someone to provide first-class ActiveX support in Mozill |
|
they could even use Winelib to let them
run in Linux! |
<kerz> |
yay? |
<shaver> |
but I don't think it's a high priority
for anyone right now |
|
(a mixed blessing, indeed) |
<chrisn> |
Kovu: followup question? |
<Kovu> |
Yeah, I guess it's just a question of
where you draw the line between supporting bad stuff to enhance
compatibility and how that on the other hand might encourage that
incompatibility. Thanks, though, good answer. |
<shaver> |
``we sell rope'' |
<chrisn> |
Next questioner is bergee. he asked: |
<dmose> |
but if someone were
to contribute ActiveX code, however, we'd certainly be interested
in (at the very least) looking at it. |
<chrisn> |
Will you guys ever make a build with just
the browser (IE no mail/news/editor stuff) - or are we going to
have to make a build like that ourselves? |
<shaver> |
that's a hard question |
<dmose> |
the editor is a slightly different question
than the mail/news |
<shaver> |
mailnews is easy: separating
it out is a packaging issue, and you'll probably see a different
package for mozilla-mailnews in the Beta, if not the Alpha |
<dmose> |
because the editor is used for text fields
in the browser. so large chunks of that code will already be necessary. |
<shaver> |
editor is hard: we use
lots of the editor code for our text widgets, so you can't just
rip out mozilla/editor and get going |
|
I might like to see
a cleaner factoring of the editor code to produce a minimal editor
widget (text only, etc.), but I don't know how hard that is, or
what the gain would really be |
<MattyT> |
I imagine the html editor is used in mailnews
and not browser ... |
<shaver> |
<textarea type="text/html">
is an emerging defacto standard, though, so... |
<chrisn> |
next questioner is cls, actually... |
<cls> |
you mentioned modularity,
would it be possible to reduce the runtime footprint by not loading
(at all) any "advanced" HTML features that the user does not want.
(Advanced in this case being things beyond HTML 3.2 or HTML 2.0
even) |
|
basically, are there
any plans to make bits of the layout engine more modular? |
<shaver> |
there are certainly plans to make the
layout engine modular is some ways |
|
splitting XUL and HTML is one such way |
|
I'm not sure if anyone has looked at HTML3.2/HTML2.0,
etc. |
|
it would be interesting to see how much
code you could gain that way, and at what cost in speed for the
full-HTML4 case |
|
to some extent, though, this is an operating
system problem: |
|
if you're not using the <FRAME>
tag, then the code related to it should stay out of memory, dammit
=) |
<chrisn> |
cls: followup question? |
<cls> |
what does it take to become an "official"
member of mozilla.org? :) |
<shaver> |
that's not a followup,
you cheater, but I'll ask anyway |
|
s/ask/answer/ |
|
basically, you apply |
<MattyT> |
cls: you need to hork the tree at least
once |
<cls> |
ok |
<shaver> |
if someone is interested in being part
of the core mozilla.org administrative team, they would need to
make explain to the existing core what they want to do |
|
and then it's like any interview process:
lots of embarrassing questions and stuff |
<chrisn> |
ok, next questioner
is Antisoche: |
<Antisoche> |
me? |
|
I think I'm done, thanks. |
<chrisn> |
ok |
|
then on to Waldo.... |
<Waldo> |
With all the *insane* anti-mozilla spinning
going on lately, how does an open source project best combat FUD
and disinformation? Can we expect AOL to be involved in or leading
a media/education campaign any time soon, and if so will it be coordinated/planned
with advocates in the OSS community? |
<kerz> |
you type damn fast |
<dmose> |
I think we can expect |
<shaver> |
heh, yes, it is *insane* |
<Waldo> |
mavis beacon rocks! :) |
<shaver> |
I think that you'll
notice that our press balance has been more positive of late |
<dmose> |
to get help from many of the different
companies involved in Mozilla, including AOL. |
|
some will be in the form of join press
releases, some of which we've seen recently |
<shaver> |
the _best_ thing we
can do to get good press is release a browser that kicks ass and
takes names |
<Kovu> |
Hallelujah! |
<shaver> |
there will still be
bad press; everything gets bad press |
<skJain> |
Me says yay to that also |
<shaver> |
now, we also need to
work the system a little better, I suspect |
<dmose> |
but if any mozilla contributors would
like to donate marketing muscle, we'd be interested |
<shaver> |
I do what I can as the
press point-man for mozilla.org, but there's only so much I can
do |
<chrisn> |
:) uh - hello? |
<shaver> |
there's definitely room
for more people doing stuff like chrisn and ben_goodger do |
<Kovu> |
I'm trained in journalism and willing
;) |
<shaver> |
that's the kind of advocacy
and marketing that I want to see lots of |
<chrisn> |
shaver: I'd love to have more to do on
that front |
<shaver> |
it's (usually =) ) even-handed
and fair, and helps us a lot |
|
it's great for morale,
too |
<chrisn> |
shaver: just like to have a plan behind
it somehow |
<shaver> |
I think chrisn does
a _spectacular_ job right now |
|
even slashdot is starting
to follow his pro-Mozilla lead =) |
<zinebot> |
Just appeared in MozillaZine (http://www.mozillazine.org/):
<font color="red">Developer Chat
going on NOW!</font> |
<dmose> |
Kovu: you could consider
writing an article about why mozilla is in fact succeeding, and
submitting it for publication in the more mainstream press, for
example |
<zinebot> |
Just appeared in freshmeat.net (http://freshmeat.net):
thttpd 2.05 |
<chrisn> |
they finally are! |
<shaver> |
we'll show them. we'll show them all. |
<dmose> |
. |
<Waldo> |
My followup-- there was some discussion
a few weeks back on mozillazine about using more contests to generate
slogans, banners, icons, etc.. Ok, not so much a question as a comment...
Oh yeah, and Chrisn-- you do an awesome job! |
<chrisn> |
thanks! |
<shaver> |
(that wasn't a very good answer, I fear.
sorry) |
<chrisn> |
ok, next question is
from kerz: |
<kerz> |
What is mozilla.org's official mascot? |
<MattyT> |
uh oh |
<chrisn> |
hehehe |
<shaver> |
our official mascot
is pavlov |
<Kovu> |
oh the green or red thing again! |
<chrisn> |
heh |
<dmose> |
that would be the red dragon that you
see on the mozilla web pages |
<MattyT> |
green! |
<Kovu> |
T-rex |
<shaver> |
that would be a good
poll, if it hasn't been one already |
<dmose> |
the green dragon is quite nice, but he
is and always has been very much associated with netscape |
<Kovu> |
dragon, pshaw |
<skJain> |
Inversing the colors in the image you
get a pretty shade of blue |
<chrisn> |
shaver: ok, will do |
|
just don't stuff the
ballot box! |
<MattyT> |
shaver: I've suggested it already =) |
<shaver> |
but at this point, I
think that changing the Mozilla colours or style would be harmful
to what little brand-value we already have |
|
I should point out that
I don't think we can really change |
<chrisn> |
maybe we could have Dave Titus do up a
cartoon version of the red T-Rex |
<shaver> |
but I'm still interested
in seeing the poll results |
<chrisn> |
so that it could be used in various settings
easily, like the green moz was |
<shaver> |
that would be a decent
compromise |
<dmose> |
if Dave's interested in that, that would
be a neat thing |
<chrisn> |
I have to talk to him
anyway. I'll ask him about it |
<Kovu> |
dmoz.org still uses the green BTW |
<chrisn> |
kerz: followup? |
<kerz> |
followup: What are the licence(s) on mozilla.org
images? |
<dmose> |
fwiw, for various reasons,
dmoz.org is fact not associated with mozilla.org |
<shaver> |
the license on the images is a really
good question |
|
I'd like to say ``as free as the code'',
but I should really look into getting that clarified |
* shaver |
adds to his todo list |
<Kovu> |
dmose: maybe another reason to leave the
green |
<dmose> |
Kovu: yes |
|
. |
<chrisn> |
ok - next in the queue was me, but my
question was asked by someone else a while ago, so we're on to cls,
if he has another question: |
<cls> |
yep |
<shaver> |
cls is full of it |
<cls> |
there have been murmurings
that mozilla is over-engineered and will never be finished/released.
(I suppose no open source project truly is). Do you think this perception
would have been different if development had continued on the classic |
<shaver> |
I mean, of questions |
<cls> |
instead of dropping
nearly everything and basically starting over 6 months after the
project started? |
<shaver> |
if we had continued on the classic, we
would have shipped 5.0 |
|
I'm pretty sure of that |
|
but 5.0 would have been _vastly_ different |
<Kovu> |
(piece of crap, methinks) |
<shaver> |
it would have been seriously constrained
by the 4.x heritage |
|
I spent months hacking on Classic layout
and DOM and CSS stuff, so I speak from painful experience here |
|
as to the over-engineering accusations,
there are relatively few people outside of the developers who are
familiar enough with the code to give an opinion that I would respect |
|
I think some of the developers would agree
that parts are over-engineered |
|
I could probably point to a few things
that I'd like to trim a bit =) |
|
but I don't think it's a serious issue |
|
most of the requests we get in terms of
architecture are for _more_ engineering, like additional hooks and
modularity indirections |
|
4.x was arguably not as ``over-engineered'',
but it was also not nearly as pleasant to work with |
|
we'd be seeing an entirely different set
of complaints, I think =) |
<chrisn> |
ok, we have just a few
more questions in the queue for this evening... |
|
skJain is up next: |
<kerz> |
he's gone |
<chrisn> |
ack |
|
ok |
|
photek is up next |
<photek> |
do you expect MS to release a competing
IE 6 or whatever the number in reaction against Moz 5 soon after
you release it ? |
<shaver> |
do I get to give the
IE-competition rant now? |
<chrisn> |
yes, please! |
<kerz> |
look out |
<dmose> |
that isn't something we've been giving
much thought to |
<Kovu> |
(IE has accomplished
its goal, and is on back, back burner, methinks) |
<shaver> |
first, I gotta say that I have no idea
what MS will do with their versioning, and I try to spend as little
time as possible thinking about it |
|
one thing I _hope_ they'll do is release
an IE that has higher-fidelity standards support; maybe Mozilla
can help push them in that direction |
|
but now |
|
I am not at all motivated by competing
with IE |
<TonyG> |
p |
<shaver> |
if IE were to be taken off the market
tomorrow, our mission would be no less important |
|
the job here is to provide a high-quality,
open-source browser |
<dmose> |
that is cross-platform |
<shaver> |
yes |
|
what _might_ change our mission would
be if a browser like IE was magically ported to lots of platforms
and released under an open source license |
|
in the meantime, I think we'd best keep
working. =) |
<chrisn> |
photek: followup? |
<photek> |
i agree with you but i tell you this because
the press seem to think that version number is synonym with "better
quality" (it's silly i know) |
<chrisn> |
next questioner is MattyT: |
<shaver> |
the numbering game is one that I think
``downstream'' companies like AOL/Netscape will be able to plpay |
|
play better |
|
let's leave that to them. |
<MattyT> |
well open source is
synonymous with "release often" |
<photek> |
ok |
<MattyT> |
after the original full
"stable" release, what process is likely to be undertaken, will
it be like linux and there be separate branches for stable and unstable
releases? |
<shaver> |
I think so |
<MattyT> |
and how would that go
with linear milestone numbers |
<shaver> |
I would like to see the 5.0 release be
followed very closely by a branching |
|
we may very well have to rethink our milestone
numbering =) |
<chrisn> |
MattyT: followup? |
<MattyT> |
yep |
|
when we shut down features hard for alpha/beta,
will there be a branch for contributors to work on still? |
<shaver> |
I hope we don't need
a branch |
|
when we get down into
hard-core polish mode, I'd like to think that lots of developers
will be able to work on extensions |
<MattyT> |
ok so switches will be used ... |
<shaver> |
if you're doing the
IRC client or a new network protocol or MNG support, you don't have
to get locked down at the same time |
|
I think the mozilla/extensions
directory will be locked down very late indeed, if at all |
|
for contributors who
are working on core layout and JS and widget, like lots of engineers
at Netscape, they'll have to follow the lockdown |
<chrisn> |
Waldo's up next: |
<Waldo> |
It seems likely that
there could be an official "gecko/nglayout inside" certification
to brand commercial products that use the layout engine. Who would
own/control such a thing? |
<shaver> |
branding is hard. let's use the shopping
button. |
<dmose> |
that's an interesting
question |
<shaver> |
it would be nice if there was a programme
for that |
|
but deciding what it actually means would
be hard |
<dmose> |
for one, some companies
are more likely to be interested in branding a specific downstream
distribution |
<shaver> |
I think you'll see some organizations
branding gecko/nglayout and providing support for those branded
things |
<Waldo> |
Maybe you'd say "Netscape(TM)
Gecko compliant" but that could turn to chaos pretty quick.. |
<shaver> |
well, I wouldn't be saying ``Netscape(TM)''
anything =) |
<Kovu> |
{maybe back to your
"Standards-compliant" idea} |
<dmose> |
Waldo: right. what do you mean by turning
to chaos? |
<Waldo> |
I mean if you had more
than one version of certification.. everyone certifying their own
gecko.. |
<MattyT> |
waldo: mozilla nglayout you mean =) |
<shaver> |
I'd love to have people
say ``my software kicks ass because of Mozilla technology'' |
|
I'm just not sure how
to keep that meaningful |
<Kovu> |
{maybe a W3C-certification} |
<shaver> |
the Mozilla license
and process is designed to let people take very small parts, or
the whole pile |
<MattyT> |
shaver: it doesn't matter if it's meaningful,
if it's good for the mozilla name =) |
<dmose> |
this also gets back
to our current need for marketing muscle. if any of you would care
to devote time and thought to how such a mozilla branding might
work, that could bge worthwhile |
<shaver> |
it might be bad for the mozilla name! |
|
if someone takes the layout engine and
breaks CSS with an ``optimization'', I don't want them calling that
``Mozilla Gecko'' |
<MattyT> |
but bad news is better
than no news |
<Waldo> |
I think it's important to have mozilla
advocacy consistant and "on message" because the anti-mozilla forces
are highly organized. |
<shaver> |
not yet sure where to
draw the line |
|
the anti-mozilla forces,
though, are generally ill-informed |
|
that's our advantage:
facts =) |
<chrisn> |
true |
<Waldo> |
except for one big one
in redmond |
<MattyT> |
there are no anti-mozilla forces, just
ignorant people |
<Kovu> |
good product = good
press |
<shaver> |
MS hasn't done much in the way of anti-Mozilla
press, if that's what you mean |
<MattyT> |
and ignorant people
can be educated |
<shaver> |
I think they're probably waiting, like
everyone else, to see what we get done |
<Waldo> |
Maybe i'm just really
paranoid :) |
<MattyT> |
and MS think Mozilla is a failure I think |
<shaver> |
and when Mozilla 5.0
is done, I'm ready to take all comers |
<Waldo> |
I have to assume MS is behind everything
bad |
<shaver> |
=) |
<Waldo> |
heeh |
<Kovu> |
they don't want to call
attention to it |
<chrisn> |
ok, folks we need to wrap it up for this
evening. I'd like to thank Mike and Dan for stopping by and answering
questions (and for staying later) |