MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Minutes of the mozilla.org Staff Meeting of Monday 17th May 2004

Friday June 4th, 2004

The minutes of the mozilla.org staff meeting held on Monday 17th May 2004 are now online. Issues discussed include Mozilla 1.7 final, Mozilla Firefox 0.9, Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7, Camino 0.8, Nvu and the Bugzilla reorganisation.


#1 Nvu

by dave532

Saturday June 5th, 2004 7:44 AM

Reply to this message

A standalone composer in the Mozilla tree should have a name other than Nvu. The Nvu name belongs to Lindows therefore the Mozilla.org version should have a different name. Something that fits in the the firefox, thunderbird naming scheme

#8 A new name for the composer?

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Wednesday June 9th, 2004 3:19 AM

Reply to this message

Seagull!

#2 I suggested Songbird before...

by kb7iuj <ajvincent@hotmail.com>

Saturday June 5th, 2004 1:36 PM

Reply to this message

... and got nowhere. Daniel Glazman said once upon a time the name would be Composer++, and that was the end of that.

#3 Before we worry about a new name for NVU.....

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Saturday June 5th, 2004 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

What is needed is a version of NVU which is compatible with the Mac. If a standalone Composer is added to the tree will it work on the Mac? Will the improvements/changes from NVU make it into the suite's composer component? At present there are very few (none?) low end web design solutions for the Mac OS X beyond the Composer component in the present suite.

Since the Mac platform is popular with graphics/ design propfessionals it would be nice to develop Mozilla as the "tool" of choice for checking and validating web sites. Composer is needed on the Mac for setting up a web page when the site designer doesn't want to fire up one of the biggies (ie a web site design tool from Adobe) or cannot afford such an exspensive package (i.e. a non-profit group). We need NVU to be at least as good, or (hopefully better) than MSFrontpage so that NVU/Composer will be the tool of choice in the low end category. Frontpage, in my opinion, exists primarily to further the MS/Windows/IE domination of the Web. There needs to be a tool for web development which is platform neutral and is better than Frontpage and comes (wishful thinking) pre-installed on many computers sold. NVU/Composer is required to strengthen the platform independent nature of the Web, especially at the lower end of the market were products such as Adobe's are too exspensive.

#6 Re: Before we worry about a new name for NVU.....

by zookqvalem

Monday June 7th, 2004 6:39 AM

Reply to this message

To make the long story short... Mozilla Composer is cross-platform (Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, etc...). NVU is not cross platform. Think about this, merging the NVU into Mozilla Composer would be a music to everyone's ears. Give Mozilla and NVU some time and some discussion on how to sort this out. Have some patience and see what will happen. It would be that or a new product like Firefox/Thunderbird for example. Zook

#7 Re: Re: Before we worry about a new name for NVU..

by zookqvalem

Monday June 7th, 2004 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

See Daniel Glazman's comment below. That's answer our questions... Just give it some time... Zook

#4 Snowbird ?

by PaulBe

Saturday June 5th, 2004 3:01 PM

Reply to this message

It has been suggested by Delta (Radioactive Dinosaur) that the stand-alone Composer (++) should be called Snowbird. See: (in english:) <http://forums.mozillanews…tion=display;threadid=138> or in japanese: <http://slashdot.jp/articl…3/0850240.shtml?topic=104>

On the webpage of Disruptive Innovations, D Glazmans firm, on DIs products <http://disruptive-innovat…s.com/products/index.html> there is a funny "snowbird.jpg" for the Composer++ product.

Paul Be.

#5 Nvu or not Nvu, that not is the question

by glazou <daniel@glazman.org>

Sunday June 6th, 2004 11:48 AM

Reply to this message

> A standalone composer in the Mozilla tree should have a name other than Nvu. The Nvu name belongs to Lindows therefore the Mozilla.org version should have a different name.

Therefore.... Hum. We'll see.