<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/20/2016 3:38 AM, Matt Harris <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:unicorn.consulting@gmail.com"><unicorn.consulting@gmail.com></a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:16b876eb-2a9f-c410-05be-c4816de0ff63@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17-Dec-16 1:54 AM, Disaster Master
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f2273f62-0389-ab8e-7b21-2990cb9aee97@gmail.com">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<i>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".<br>
</i></blockquote>
<br>
Hi Matt,<br>
<br>
I think you are misunderstanding.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
So, please read what is actually being said, no need to create FUD
where there is none.<i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i>
<blockquote
cite="mid:16b876eb-2a9f-c410-05be-c4816de0ff63@gmail.com"
type="cite"><i> I am looking forward to a time when we can see the
full impact of HTML5 in email.</i></blockquote>
<br>
As I'm sure are many (or all?) of us - especially for the composer.
But that is beside the point.<br>
<br>
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 to function.<i><br>
<br>
</i>
<blockquote
cite="mid:16b876eb-2a9f-c410-05be-c4816de0ff63@gmail.com"
type="cite"><i>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><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I hate it when people resort to this, but sometimes it is
appropriate:<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
This is the real world, and these things will not happen without the
necessary resources.<br>
</body>
</html>