Rozilla
Bruno D'Arcangeli
What happens about Rozilla (mozilla for RISC OS) no news since 2000 ?
Bruno.
Peter Naulls
ot...@club-internet.fr (Bruno D'Arcangeli) wrote:
> Hi.
> What happens about Rozilla (mozilla for RISC OS) no news since 2000 ?
Nothing, unless someone else is proposing to take up the challenge.
If you really really wanted a browser port, there are probably better
targets, I think.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org
Homepage - http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS Projects Initiative - http://initiative.chocky.org/
RISC OS C Programming - http://www.riscos.info/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Seago
<URL:mailto:pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
<Rozilla>
> Nothing, unless someone else is proposing to take up the challenge.
> If you really really wanted a browser port, there are probably better
> targets, I think.
>
Regards from : Using a : Software for RISC OS:Conservation Pages
Robert Seago : StrongArm RiscPC : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
--
Peter Naulls
Robert Seago <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ce1a4542...@moo.chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> <URL:mailto:pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> <Rozilla>
> > Nothing, unless someone else is proposing to take up the challenge.
> > If you really really wanted a browser port, there are probably better
> > targets, I think.
> >
> Which would you favour?
I'd favour the one that is most appealing and within the abilities of
the porter.
Jack Evans
<pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In message <ant06185...@R.zetnet.co.uk> Robert Seago
> <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <ce1a4542...@moo.chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > <URL:mailto:pe...@chocky.org> wrote: <Rozilla>
> > > Nothing, unless someone else is proposing to take up the
> > > challenge. If you really really wanted a browser port, there are
> > > probably better targets, I think.
> > >
> > Which would you favour?
> I'd favour the one that is most appealing and within the abilities of
> the porter.
By coincidence The Register has today reported the long-awaited release
of Mozilla 1.0 see www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25598.html . Key paras
are:
Available now for download from Mozilla.org, the software comes in two
pieces, an application package and a software development toolkit. The
former comprises browser, chat client, email and Usenet reader, while the
latter contains Mozilla components, such as the Gecko web rendering
engine, and tools to build additional applications.
Mozilla is nothing if not a 'vision thing'. The organization sees that it
has created not just a browser to rival Internet Explorer - its initial
mandate - but a cross-OS platform on top of which a next generation of
standards-compliant applications can be built. In many ways, the vision
goes back to Netscape's early dreams of using the browser to kill
Windows.
Mozilla.org said the browser package is primarily intended for tweaking,
rebranding and distribution by third parties, rather than to be
downloaded directly from Mozilla.org by each individual web user. AOL
Time Warner Inc's Netscape and AOL browsers are likely to based on
Mozilla, and developers such as Red Hat Inc and IBM Corp are looking at
the technology.
The toolkit comprises the Gecko browser engine, already used in AOL's
CompuServe client, a JavaScript engine, networking libraries, along with
programming tools such as debuggers. In addition, Mozilla allows
developers to use XUL (extensible user-interface language) to create
application user interfaces in web standards such as XML and JavaScript.
Much is made of Mozilla's support for web standards, said to be the best
in the marketplace. The Gecko engine supports HTML 4.0, XML 1.0, RDF,
CSS1, DOM1, SOAP 1.1, XSLT, XPath 1.0 and FIXptr. Partial support for
CSS2, XHMTL and DOM2 is also included. A portability layer allows the
software to run on operating systems including Windows, Linux, MacOS,
FreeBSD and HP-UX.
Regards
Jack
--
Jack Evans Bristol UK
mailto:ja...@notsoljsevans.co.uk Drop the 'notso' to reply
David Robinson
news:4b42ed0...@ljsevans.co.uk...
> In article <63b47e42...@moo.chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In message <ant06185...@R.zetnet.co.uk> Robert Seago
> > <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In article <ce1a4542...@moo.chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > > <URL:mailto:pe...@chocky.org> wrote: <Rozilla>
> > > > Nothing, unless someone else is proposing to take up the
> > > > challenge. If you really really wanted a browser port, there are
> > > > probably better targets, I think.
> > > >
> > > Which would you favour?
>
> > I'd favour the one that is most appealing and within the abilities of
> > the porter.
>
> By coincidence The Register has today reported the long-awaited release
> of Mozilla 1.0 see www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25598.html .
Erm, Rozilla was an attempt to bring Mozilla to the RISC OS platform and the
release of Moz1.0 was what started this thread in the first place.
--
David
Jack Evans
Silly me- so it wasn't a coincidence, after all!
Bruno D'Arcangeli
Jack Evans <ja...@notsoljsevans.co.uk> wrote:
Ok, now i use Mozilla on my SGI box but i'm waiting for a good RISC OS
browser.
May be NetSurf ?
Thanks to all
Bye
--
Bruno D'Arcangeli <ot...@club-internet.fr>
-------> http://www.armonix.org <--------
---------> RISC OS in French <-----------
Peter Naulls
Bruno D'Arcangeli <ot...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
[Rozilla/Mozilla]
> Ok, now i use Mozilla on my SGI box but i'm waiting for a good RISC OS
> browser.
> May be NetSurf ?
Hope you're patient. Having looked at the project, I estimate
completion end of 2003 (seriously).
Besides, no one's going to be entirely happy with RO Browsers, unless we
have a port of Mozilla, or something that closely emulates IE. The
chance of Mozilla port is much higher than NetSurf being something that
ppl will be happy with, and likely to happen sooner.
Peter
Steffen Huber
>
> In message <66d77c4...@club-internet.fr>
> Bruno D'Arcangeli <ot...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>
> [Rozilla/Mozilla]
>
> > Ok, now i use Mozilla on my SGI box but i'm waiting for a good RISC OS
> > browser.
> > May be NetSurf ?
>
> Hope you're patient. Having looked at the project, I estimate
> completion end of 2003 (seriously).
I also had a look, and the project goals are surely ambitious. I hope
the developers are aware that it is very likely that the most valuable
things they gain from this project are an idea how to manage a big
software project and a deep knowledge of HTML/CSS/HTTP.
> Besides, no one's going to be entirely happy with RO Browsers, unless we
> have a port of Mozilla, or something that closely emulates IE. The
> chance of Mozilla port is much higher than NetSurf being something that
> ppl will be happy with, and likely to happen sooner.
And, most importantly: there is no need to port Mozilla. All we need is a
port of Gecko, so that people can build their own browser around the
main parsing and rendering engine. Although Gecko is of course the
hardest part to port, it would be a lot less time consuming than doing
a full-blown Mozilla port.
Apart from all the Gecko-based browsers, has anyone looked seriously
at porting Dillo?
http://dillo.cipsga.org.br/
Steffen
--
steffe...@gmx.de ste...@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/
Peter Naulls
Steffen Huber <steffe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Besides, no one's going to be entirely happy with RO Browsers, unless we
> > have a port of Mozilla, or something that closely emulates IE. The
> > chance of Mozilla port is much higher than NetSurf being something that
> > ppl will be happy with, and likely to happen sooner.
>
> And, most importantly: there is no need to port Mozilla. All we need is a
> port of Gecko, so that people can build their own browser around the
> main parsing and rendering engine. Although Gecko is of course the
> hardest part to port, it would be a lot less time consuming than doing
> a full-blown Mozilla port.
You are correct, in general. But the "lot less time" factor may vary
considerably depending upon some other as yet unnamed issues that might
come into play.
> Apart from all the Gecko-based browsers, has anyone looked seriously
> at porting Dillo?
> http://dillo.cipsga.org.br/
Breifly. But all the same issues such as lack of Javascript come into
play. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time unless the effort in porting
it was minimal, as its functionality doesn't really merit it.
Graham Thurlwell
says...
<snip>
> Apart from all the Gecko-based browsers, has anyone looked seriously
> at porting Dillo?
I nearly misread that. ;-)
--
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
Jades' FFE Site: http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier First Encounters site on the net