The infamous Mozilla core editor
jorgk at jorgk.com
Fri Mar 6 06:15:17 UTC 2015
On 6/03/2015 00:25, R Kent James wrote:
> Just to be clear, there are no current plans to try to persuade
> Mozilla to increase their support of areas that are important to
> Thunderbird, either directly or indirectly. (This is partly because we
> hear from multiple Mozilla sources that it would be a waste of effort
> to do so).
This is the part that for a newcomer is very hard to understand. The
architecture is such that a "core" product exists, call it as you wish,
Mozilla Central, Firefox, Gecko, that is used by a plethora of "add-on"
applications, Thunderbird being the most important one.
Mozilla actively "advertise" embedding their product:
How can it be possible that a product actively used by other software
and actively advertised to other projects is not maintained in a way
that at least blatant bugs are fixed?
(Note: The other area Thunderbird is experiencing problems with is the
"toolkit" used for auto-complete when entering recipients.)
> Our current goals are to operate as an independent project under the
> Mozilla umbrella, to be allowed to raise funds and otherwise operate
> as a legitimate, self-governing group. As far as we know there are no
> serious policy obstacles to this, only procedural issues that we are
> trying to overcome.
That is fine and understood. However, the argument - as far as I
understood - will be that Thunderbird is an important product supplied
by Mozilla, that its usage is increasing, that there are many voices
calling for better support, etc. So why can't one of the facets be
better support for Mozilla's core product?
Let's waste the time and get a *clear statement* on that before ripping
out the existing editor and replacing it with something else as some
people suggested !
Kind regards, Jorg K.
P.S.: As Ehsan explained: The editor has two modes, the simple text mode
which is used for - dare I say without being able to supply statistics -
most text entry fields on the web, and the HTML mode used by Thunderbird
and on rare occasions also elsewhere. I personally have not seen any
website using it, although Ehsan once said he noticed an editor bug when
P.S.2: I'm happy that no one criticised my statement that it is
important for the perception of the quality of Thunderbird that entering
recipient addresses and text body works without obvious errors.
More information about the tb-planning