What happened to hiring an architect?
disasterlistmanager at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 15:24:33 UTC 2016
On 12/20/2016 3:38 AM, Matt Harris <unicorn.consulting at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17-Dec-16 1:54 AM, Disaster Master wrote:
>> Again, if certain parts become too great of a risk (ie, Gecko
>> security issues too difficult to fix), reduce HTML rendering
>> capability as is necessary to minimize/eliminate the risks.
> /I think this is really a bit of a bad idea from a champion of user
> choice in user interface and customization. You want the program
> flexible in the area that of customization that interests you, but in
> the area of HTML rendering you want to "lock it down".
I think you are misunderstanding.
Neither I nor Kent *want* to lock it down. As I just said in another
email, this is only a contingency plan for if (or apparently *when*) we
are forced to a decision between being able to build a working
Thunderbird or not, without forking to a working version of Gecko.
So, please read what is actually being said, no need to create FUD where
there is none./
> /I am looking forward to a time when we can see the full impact of
> HTML5 in email./
As I'm sure are many (or all?) of us - especially for the composer. But
that is beside the point.
Thunderbird right now has a very serious resource deficit problem, so
resources must be prioritized and directed at the most pressing
problem(s), and right now, our reliance on Gecko is the biggest problem
due to Mozilla's deprecating core parts (XUL/XBL/XPCOM) that we rely on
> /Thunderbird currently supports much more of it that some other
> providers and therefore it is not getting the traction that it
> deserves. But I am dead against locking things down to a small subset
> as Gmail has done, holding up non text email up as a result. All in
> the name of security. Not supporting scripting languages I accept and
> understand, as I support no Flash. But Thunderbird must support the
> HTML specification as it stands now and into the future./
I hate it when people resort to this, but sometimes it is appropriate:
"We await with baited breath your contribution of a rewrite of the core
rendering engine (currently Gecko) that will fully support the
components needed by Thunderbird to function - or, a rewrite of the UI
that will replace all of the current functionality currently used by
XUL/XBL/XPCOM - or a donation large enough to cover these costs by
developers that can do the work."
This is the real world, and these things will not happen without the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tb-planning