hal9000 / hypermetrics.com wrote:

> 2. I do favor the possibility of a web-based browser. In fact, I
> wouldn't mind if it was *truly* web-based, i.e., you could look at
> code running on a remote machine as long as it had an embedded web
> server.
> 
> 3. I do also favor the possibilty of a "native" GUI, whether your
> desktop of choice is Win32 or Linux KDE. In a case like this, I
> would prefer an MDI interface, as nonmodal as possible.

Well from this and some other related quality-oriented and 
capability-oriented comments on other threads, it seems to me that we will 
probably want a Mozilla-based solution. (Granted this seems like jumping 
to conclusions from a small sample set, but with the exception of those 
who want small downloads and no auxiliary installs above all other 
considerations, I don't see any other even half-way likely-to-be 
mutually-satisfactory choice on the horizon.)

The only reason for bringing this up now concerns the lead time involved 
in producing the prerequisite XPCOM interface to support Ruby-Mozilla 
scripting, which someone else (possibly people from the much larger 
Japanese mail lists) might be interested in pursuing as a separate project 
while "what do we want the to do" types of  discussions proceed about 
R.IDE. (And such people might be much more motivated to actually do this 
if they knew an important project was going to be using it.) This would 
prevent an otherwise unnecessary additional delay when we are ready to 
start preliminary implementations (whether or not we decide to build on 
the Komodo project's  IDE framework or not).

Finally, the ability to readily crank out innovative high-quality 
cross-platform Mozilla-based applications might be the Ruby killer-app we 
would all like to see, making for an interesting synergy tool-product 
infrastructure synergy.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)