<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body smarttemplateinserted="true" text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div id="smartTemplate4-template"><img style="margin-top: 1em;
float: right; box-shadow: 1px 1px 2px rgba(20, 20, 20, 0.4);"
moz-do-not-send="false" class="myLogo"
src="cid:part1.D09363B5.CEF2086B@gmail.com" alt="Get
Thunderbird!" height="15" width="94">
</div>
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">
<style type="text/css" scoped="">
#newHeaderAG1 b { font-weight:bold; color: #990033; min-width: 4.5em; max-width:none; display:inline-block;}
</style>
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin-bottom: -20px !important;
padding-bottom:20px !important;">
<div id="newHeaderAG1" style="font-size: x-small; padding:1em;
background-color:rgba(220,220,240,0.4); border-radius:3px;"> <b>Subject:</b>Re:
Vision for Thunderbird<br>
<b>From:</b>Magnus Melin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi"><mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi></a><br>
<b>To:</b>Tb-planning <br>
<b>Sent: </b>Monday, 05/02/2018 19:29:11 19:29 GMT ST +0000
[Week 6]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c194f962-af6b-e549-2186-a6c37698bf83@iki.fi"
id="mid_c194f962_af6b_e549_2186_a6c37698bf83_iki_fi" class=" cite">On
03-02-2018 15:26, Gervase Markham wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" id="Cite_3779844" class=" cite">On
03/02/18 13:23, Eyal Rozenberg wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" id="Cite_4675196" class=" cite">Disagree
about the method of achieving speed and stability. For the
<br>
Thunderbird dev community to maintain a fork of a rendering
engine seems
<br>
like over-reaching.
<br>
</blockquote>
I'm not sure if this idea has ever been discussed - maybe it
has.
<br>
<br>
The difficulty with maintaining an ever-more-distant fork of a
rendering
<br>
engine such as Gecko has always been said to be "security
updates". And
<br>
that is a clear concern.
<br>
<br>
What if... Thunderbird forked Gecko and froze it, running most
of the
<br>
app and the UI on top, and then embedded a second, maintained,
<br>
embeddable, lightweight rendering engine which dealt with all
untrusted
<br>
content? Such as Servo?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
While security updates is certainly a large part of it, there is a
lot of more things surrounding it. It's the whole platform.
<br>
<br>
What's referred to casually as Gecko here is perhaps not clearly
defined, but I imagine that in all scenarios what you'd end up
with is an unattractive platform. </blockquote>
That's pretty much what I view Firefox as after release of Quantum.
I had to abandon supporting it due to lack of features with 2 of my
addons and have switched to Waterfox permanently.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c194f962-af6b-e549-2186-a6c37698bf83@iki.fi"
id="mid_c194f962_af6b_e549_2186_a6c37698bf83_iki_fi" class=" cite">Imagine
if there had been a fork 5 years ago and no JavaScript features
after that were available for us internally. That's not a platform
attracting developers. </blockquote>
<p>That's exactly my feeling about abandoning XPCOM / XUL support. I
guess without XUL it would probably be workable (very painfully)
but losing XPCOM access was cutting off the legs for Add-on
developers.</p>
<p>Axel</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>