On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Quim Gil <quim.gil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But users don't deal with engines alone, you have the UI in between and > this is where the Mozilla browser in Chinook and Fennec differ most: the > first uses an own UI providing -as for today- much better performance > that XUL, a component that seems like needing more work before being > really fit in mobile devices. Are we going to keep this difference in > the future? This is actually where the Mozilla version has a very distinct advantage: they plan to support plug-ins, and there will be much more functionality. The current MicroB has some serious shortcomings in that area. There are some rather basic and important settings and functionality that are missing from MicroB. If you're going to call it an "Internet Tablet", and claim that is its only purpose, then you'd better make sure that it can deliver fully on that promise. >From my experience with Fennec, as well as the screen shots I've seen, the UI is a non-issue: Fennec already appears "hildonized" out of the box, and anyway one of the main areas that Mozilla is working on is to make their browsers appear more "native" regardless of what OS they are installed in. Mark _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
