Pale Moon forum

Can it be? most likely yes....Will it be?....most likely no

Moonchild wrote:

Penultima wrote:Could this somehow be implemented as a default part of Pale Moon?

...why is it when someone finds an extension that exactly suits their personal needs, it immediately becomes a question whether it can be included in the core?

Well the suggestion may be refused.
But for a thing like a key configurator, that's far from an absurd proposal. Numerous programs have such ability included.
That shouldn't be : "is there an addon which do that ? If yes, then it shouldn't be in core" but more like "That feature doesn't belong to core because <thing>, just use the addon which do that"
I may be wrong but I too often at least get the feeling it's the first thing.

Supernova wrote:I may be wrong but I too often at least get the feeling it's the first thing.

Adding any feature to the core should not be taken lightly as there are many issues to be considered.

• Any core change requires extensive regression testing of the entire program, a resource consuming process which further slows necessary development
• Any core change of the nature being discussed is likely to conflict with existing add-ons (primarily extensions), upsetting many users
• The core should be just that, the CORE, which needs to provide a stable and (reasonably) light-weight browsing environment
• Core changes should benefit the majority of users, not just fringe or advanced users
• Take a look a the various threads in the forums that have requested valid and useful features to be added to the core, imagine how bulky and cumbersome PM would be with all of these proposed additions. I find it amusing the people complain about adding overhead to PM by adding extensions but somehow think that adding the same functionality to the core will somehow magically not have the same memory impact
• Additionally, look at the number of suggested extensions in this thread. It's clear that there are multiple ways of performing the same task, some users prefer one way, others prefer another. Whichever approach Moonchild would build into the code would meet with great resistance by some, so why not give users the freedom to select their ideal solution?
• Lest we forget, take a look at what happened to FF when its developers decided to tinker with the core

http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5647

A key configurator does not belong in the core, because the core should have an unambiguous way of working, which includes having set keys for set actions.
A key configurator does not belong in the core, because it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to cater to third-party programs that do not overload keys properly.
A key configurator does not belong in the core, because it will not be able to provide uniform key handling for changes across different operating systems (see, e.g., the known issue on Mac for this very extension).

I can go on.

I should not have to justify every time an extension is promoted why I do not consider it a good core feature. If I do, I will mention it and a plan to integrate it. if I say nothing, then you can assume there are good reasons to not consider it for core inclusion.

x-15a2 wrote:Any core change requires extensive regression testing of the entire program, a resource consuming process which further slows necessary development

Yeah I understand that the limited manpower behind Pale Moon is, well, a limiting factor to what can be done.

x-15a2 wrote:The core should be just that, the CORE, which needs to provide a stable and (reasonably) light-weight browsing environment

Well, to stick to the definition of core I would agree.
But what is meant here in the discussion by core is the browser without extension.
I don't use a webpage parsing core, I use a browser. Yes, the support of extensions is one of the feature of that browser, no, everything shouldn't be put to extensions. Those laughing at mozilla deleting add-on bar then promoting an add-on bar restorer extension shouldn't use a reasoning which say that Mozilla was right. Be consistent please.

x-15a2 wrote:Core changes should benefit the majority of users, not just fringe or advanced users

No. That's a very wrong way to put it, and I'm tired seeing it again and again. (With "core changes" = "changes to browser without extensions") And that senseless statement is part of the reasonning behind the whole dumbification which affects most browser.
The correct thing is : "Core changes should either benefit a good majority while hindering a few, or benefit a few while hindering none"
Then, amount of work needed, and manpower available, guides what is done, or won't. Maintaining should also be taken in account.
The "hindering none" is there for a reason btw, that's exactly the thing which says that the program shouldn't bloating and have performance/stability issues ; reduce a previously existing choice ; or by other means like the "too many options to even think look at them" which may be an issue too.

x-15a2 wrote:Lest we forget, take a look at what happened to FF when its developers decided to tinker with the core[/list]

Last time they touched core, they thought that after all, "extensions are there for a reason" ! If people want these useless things that only "a few" use, let's remove it ! Let's change/remove/add API's here and there ! Yey !
Be consistent please.

As for MC, you mix a bit people wanting a feature and wanting integration of an addon. At least it seems, I do not read in your head. Otherwise I won't argue, we know that's pointless and your are clear about how you see things. (Oh and don't take it as something against you, hey )

I agree....I was just saying it is possible...but not necessary...... the browser should just be a browser...all things that can be useful but notnesscery for the base browser to be functional should be made into an extension of that browser.