[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

[OT] Mozilla (Was Re: browsers that support XSL)

• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Subject: [OT] Mozilla (Was Re: browsers that support XSL)
• From: sandr8 <sandreight@q...>
• Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:18:01 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <003401c23bd8$b4153a60$fe193044@tbp1>
• References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020804180201.02b889e0@p...>

i think that we're going slightly out of topic... however... i think that 
everybody here is interested in browsers =)

At 13.02 04/08/02 -0400Sunday, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
>[sandr8]
>
> > mozilla works better than explorer but XUL is too slow...
>
>That depends on what you want to do. If you need to clear out a really long
>select box (nulling out each option) and repopulate it using javascript,
>Mozilla is __much__ faster than IE.

XUL isn't the User Interface of Mozilla? who does manage scripts? gecko? or 
who else? i don't know but maybe the other browsers (i think about K-Meleon 
and Galeon) that embed mozilla treath scripts as mozilla does but are 
faster in overall performance...

>Cheers,
>
>Tom P

---
[Quipo ISP - Questa E-mail e' stata controllata dal programma Declude Virus]
[Quipo ISP - This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

• References:
  • RE: browsers that support XSL
    • From: sandr8 <sandreight@q...>
  • Re: browsers that support XSL
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: maps
• Next by Date: URI: New Interpretation
• Previous by thread: Re: browsers that support XSL
• Next by thread: Re: browsers that support XSL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread