We are intending to hire any company to implement new HTML-elements [1] in Firefox (communication between browser and DBMS should take place via sending SQL and XML [2]). We have the following questions:
1) Is our conclusion right, that [1] takes more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new feature, and it needs updating Gecko ?
2) If so (and we would not want to make fork of Firefox), how can we obtain agreement of developers, that features to be in the main Firefox version ?
> We are intending to hire any company to implement new HTML-elements [1] in Firefox > (communication between browser and DBMS should take place via sending SQL and XML [2]). > We have the following questions:
> 1) Is our conclusion right, that [1] takes more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new > feature, and it needs updating Gecko ?
Not necessarily. The whole [1] thing can probably be implemented as an extension. My company is working on a much less ambitious project with similar functionality.
> 2) If so (and we would not want to make fork of Firefox), how can we obtain agreement of developers, > that features to be in the main Firefox version ?
My experience as an independent Mozilla contributor says that this is going to be tough to sell. Packaging [1] as an extension can mean slightly more work compared to patching Gecko/libxul, but provides much better chances to get massive field testing.
Dmitry Turin wrote: > 1) Is our conclusion right, that [1] takes more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new > feature, and it needs updating Gecko ?
Everthing in that list looks like it can be implemented in XBL or XBL+XTF with no core gecko changes.
> 2) If so (and we would not want to make fork of Firefox), how can we obtain agreement of developers, > that features to be in the main Firefox version ?
Convince them that they're useful to someone other than yourself?
Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> from public-h...@w3.org said us, that it will take more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new feature. I admit, he is wrong, but i'd like to listen your opinion - he is wrong ?
> Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> from public-h...@w3.org said us, that > it will take more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new feature. > I admit, he is wrong, but i'd like to listen your opinion - he is wrong ?
There's a critical distinction: you can probably implement this as an extension, and then ask users to install your extension. Doing this doesn't require agreement from anyone else. If you want this functionality to be part of Firefox (by default) you'd have to make a case that it is actually a worthwhile thing to do.
In any case, you'd do well to start out as an extension to demonstrate the value of whatever these new SQL+HTML proposals.
Dmitry Turin wrote: > How XULRunner corresponds to XTF ? > What is the relation with these two terms ?
I answered this in the .platform thread you started on this exact same topic. Please stop cross-posting, and please do some googling before asking questions like this, ok?
> I answered this in the .platform thread you started on this exact same > topic. Please stop cross-posting, and please do some googling before > asking questions like this, ok?
Dmitry Turin wrote: > Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> from public-h...@w3.org said us, that > it will take more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new feature. > I admit, he is wrong, but i'd like to listen your opinion - he is wrong ?
If you want your code in the shared Firefox repository then you have to make a case that the benefit from the new feature (to firefox users as a whole) outweighs the costs. Costs include increased memory use, the need for additional testing, any loss of performance, and increased attack surface for security vulnerabilities.
For example, you want to enhance SQL. Firefox already uses sqlite as a SQL engine and it would be insane to have two. You might get what you want if you convince the sqlite folks to implement your new SQL features. If not, you'd have to convince Mozilla folks to replace sqlite with your new engine which sets a performance bar you'd have to meet.
btw, HTML5 proposes some support for SQL, are you sure that doesn't do what you want? It would be far more effective to work within a standards structure the browser vendors are already cooperating in if that's possible.
> benefit from the new feature (to firefox users as a > whole) outweighs the costs. + > the need for additional testing
It sounds like benefits Fortran before assembler.
> Costs include increased memory use + > any loss of performance
Recall about MS Windows, and even Linux now is not well.
> increased attack surface for security vulnerabilities
To not be in theoretical flood, by what mechanism in my case ? ??
> For example, you want to enhance SQL.
It is redundant for HTML6 - you can connect to DBMS via its branded API.
P.S. SQL5 is proposed as transport protocal for universality - between all DBMS and all client (by transfering SQL), between traditional result sets and hierarchcal results sets (by transfering XML).
> Firefox already uses sqlite as a SQL engine
I'm not user of Firefox now - interest is only for our project. So i can mess some features, correct me, if i will wrong. Yesterday i spoke with some user of your browser, he said me about html-element <template>, apparently you are talking about it ? We compared, and <template> is very week for real automatization instead of my <dialogue> ...
> and it would be insane to have two.
... so speach goes not about using concreate DBMS, but about _right way_ of using.
> You might get what you > want if you convince the sqlite folks to implement your new SQL > features.
The What-wg work may be a super-set of the official HTML 5 working spec, but browser vendors are working with both (but have not committed to supporting all of it, it is a work in progress).
Google Gears is a browser addon that provides many features, including database support. You may wish to check it out and see if it fits some of your needs.
>> I'm not user of Firefox now - interest is only for our project. > That is probably a sign that your interests and the interests of Firefox > users may not be aligned.
You are wrong wholly: requirement to browser does not depend of vendor of browser.
It is shit, because needs JS, unavailable for regular user. I laugh, how people cannot step over border, between static html-elements and interactive html-elements.
> Google Gears is a browser addon that provides many features, including > database support.
>> Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> from public-h...@w3.org said us, that >> it will take more than just writing code to get Firefox to have a new feature. >> I admit, he is wrong, but i'd like to listen your opinion - he is wrong ? > There's a critical distinction: you can probably implement this as an > extension, and then ask users to install your extension. Doing this doesn't > require agreement from anyone else. If you want this functionality to be > part of Firefox (by default) you'd have to make a case that it is actually a > worthwhile thing to do. > In any case, you'd do well to start out as an extension to demonstrate the > value of whatever these new SQL+HTML proposals.
