<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 18/09/2015 13:04, Gervase Markham wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55FBFDC1.6050005@mozilla.org" type="cite">
To put it another way: Thunderbird seems to spend a lot of time
and
energy keeping up with the changes in mozilla-central. What value
does
it get in exchange for that?<br>
</blockquote>
Here's my opinion, in no particular order, probably very incomplete:<br>
<ul>
<li>A reasonable HTML parser & display</li>
<ul>
<li>which also provides the options to integrate more things
into Thunderbird, like web pages e.g. what's new, or other
things that add-on gives<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Lower level protocol handling, certificates<br>
</li>
<li>Security with the content vs chrome display of emails</li>
<li>File handling routines (including download)<br>
</li>
<li>Database handling (for the places we use sqlite)</li>
<li>Content type handling</li>
<li>General layout of the UI</li>
<li>Crash reporting</li>
<li>Telemetry</li>
<li>Metrics</li>
<li>Installers (windows)<br>
</li>
<li>Update handling</li>
<li>Connection handling, e.g. proxies, offline etc</li>
<li>Add-ons</li>
<li>Accessibility harnesses</li>
<li>L10n</li>
<li>Internationalization<br>
</li>
<li>spell checking</li>
<li>Graphics handling</li>
<li>Test harnesses</li>
<li>Developer tools</li>
<li>Profile management</li>
<li>Various widgets & things such as autocomplete<br>
</li>
<li>Regular security updates and fixes to all of the above.</li>
</ul>
<p>I'll grant that there's nothing that couldn't be replaced, but
there's quite a lot of core functionality there that you need in
an application before you can start building out what it does.<br>
</p>
<p>Mark.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>