Curious, you think a distinction should be made, yet the
distinction isn't along browser lines. So what distinction is it?
I'm not sure what you mean...I think it should be pointed out that it
does require Internet Explorer be installed. That distinction needs
to be made, as opposed to OffbyOne, Opera, Mozilla, etc, where no
third-party components are required.
You might argue that, or you could even argue the more logical
line (which I was implying) that a browser is both , since one
without the other is lame . Of course when you download Mozilla,
Opera, Firefox whatever, you get both, while IE shells alone get
you the interface only. That's why the term IE shell is much more
accurate since there is no chance of confusion.
I don't feel there's any confusion with "Internet Explorer-based
browser", either, which I suggested up above. And besides, just
because it doesn't come with the rendering engine doesn't mean that
it's not a browser. It just means that it gets the rendering engine
elsewhere.
It's all semantics really, but the problem with calling IE shells,
"browsers" is that it confuses the issue.
I don't agree, as long as it's mentioned that they require IE.
Under your definition you have the following as "browsers"
1) Internet explorer - Stand alone runs without any other
component
2) Mozilla Firefox - stand alone runs without any other component
3) Myie2 - "Internet based browser" needs IE or Gecko to be on the
system first.
Mozilla firefox is also a "Mozilla based browser" under your
defintion unfortunately, it does not help resolve the distinction
between the fact that it comes with both rendering engine and the
interface, while Myie2 is just the later.
Again, whether or not MyIE2 is just an interface is irrelevant, as
long as it uses a rendering engine that exists. I don't understand
this argument that if it doesn't include it's own rendering engine,
it's not a browser. It certainly is a browser, it's just a browser
using a separate rendering engine.
If firefox came alone as an interface on top of Mozilla seamonkey
which you had to install first, I have no qualms to call it a
mozilla shell , much like myie2 is.
I'm afraid I got to agree with Chris here with his car analogy.
Just saying you don't like car analogies without any attempt to
show why it isn't wrong, isn't enough to convince me I'm afraid.
Car analogies suck because
A.) You can use them to support pretty much any position, and
B.) They rarely translate cleanly to technology.
But since you want to argue car analogies, if you have an engine
laying around your garage, and you buy a car body and place your
existing engine in the car, that doesn't make it any less of a car
just because it didn't come with an engine. The deciding factor is
the end behavior...does it use an engine? Can you drive it? If the
answers to these questions are yes, then I don't see how the answer
can be anything other than yes, it's a car. The same goes for
browsers...whether it comes with the engine, or uses a pre-existing
engine, that doesn't change the fact that you browse the web with it.
Using your argument, Fords, Chevys and Dodges are all cars, but a car
you build yourself using an engine you acquire separately isn't a car,
simply because it doesn't come with its own engine. That's
ridiculous.
Well that's why a browser has to have both at least?
It doesn't have to "have" both, it just has to USE both.
Christopher Jahn