[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi,
Which do you think would be more interested in using a WYSIWYG editor,
the IE user or the mozilla user?
The thing is contentEditable came out a long time ago in IE and mozilla
has yet to support it (yes, I know the workarounds). Other things you
can do in IE but not Mozilla:
- cache xsl transformers in the browser
- use MSXML's Schema Object Model (SOM) for client side valdiation
needs, showing what elements are available at the focus, etc
That being said, I would love it if mozilla had its own SOM for RNG. The
SOM is the main thing keeping me with IE.
One last thing, do you know about the Bitflux editor
(http://bitflux.org). It is similar and works in mozilla
best,
-Rob
p.s. I usually use Safari
Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Just some thoughts on market segment leverage:
>
> A number of companies choose to only support IE because they look at the
> apparent raw user statistics. This may be unwise for many kinds of
> projects and services.
>
> I consider it likely that those people that are Mozilla and other non-IE
> users are the early adopters and consist of a larger percentage of the
> more highly technical part of the market. In other words, the popular
> numbers for non-IE user percentage is 5%. With developers, especially
> certain types of developers, security personnel, and architects, these
> numbers are likely to be far different based on my experience.
>
> A well-placed early adopter, often acting as a consultant or lead
> technologist, can strongly influence a very large number of potential
> clients and other technologists. Cross-platform support can indicate
> health of a company, corporate philosophy, depth, and other attributes
> that can affect competitiveness. Simple availability on all preferred
> platforms can be a large factor.
>
> I, like many long-time consultants and technologists, have had, and
> continue to have, influence that could potentially affect very large
> enterprise decisions for decades. This varies with client
> relationships, topic, levels of credibility, etc. and there are no
> guaruntees, but I definitely make sales for companies by recommendations
> all the time. I probably prevent sales of those that I pan or pass up
> for competitors.
>
> I almost never use IE. I dislike it's interface, lack of features
> (tabbed windows is a must), fakey responsiveness (even when I know a
> server is down, IE happily fakes progress on the progress bar for a
> while), completely distrust it from a security point of view, and I've
> used Netscape since 0.9 when it was 800K on a floppy.
>
> sdw
>
> Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
>
>> Rick Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> too bad. any plans for other browsers?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 14:17, Mike Fitzgerald wrote:
>>>
>>>> ie 5.5+ only -Mike
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We need XSL, XPath and some form of contentEditable, so that leaves
>> out a lot of browsers.
>>
>> Xopus could be made to work on Mozilla, but that would probably take a
>> few months. We'd love to do it, but when you do the financial math,
>> it's not worth it. 2 years ago Xopus (sort of) worked in Mozilla, but
>> our customers clearly preferred a richer feature set in IE over
>> compatability with Mozilla.
>>
|
