[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
To remphasize a point you apparently skipped before, I wrote:
>Three-letter acronyms cause enough confusion without deliberate
>blurring. Picking another acronym would take the violence and
>confusion out of this conversation.
I'm annoyed that you're going through things I've written to pick out
bits that you think support your points while ignoring that I think
you've made a fundamental tactical mistake by appropriating the XUL
acronym to your own purposes.
luxorxul@yahoo.ca (Gerald Bauer) writes:
>Hi,
>
>> >Has anyone taken a close look at Mozilla's XUL (XML
>> >User Interface Language) and considered using it
>> for
>> >projects outside of Mozilla?
>> >
>> >I'd be interested in hearing what folks think about
>> >XUL in general, and thoughts about its use outside
>> >Mozilla in particular.
>>
>> I don't think what you're offering answers that very
>> old question.
>
> Then be so kind and tell us what you're looking for?
>Or is it that you don't care anymore?
I just wanted to know if XUL - the Mozilla XUL, not some extended
sort-of-maybe-XUL - was implemented anywhere outside of Mozilla.
>> "Handpicked Mozilla XUL goodies" isn't what I had in
>> mind by XUL.
>
> I guess you didn't get it. If I may clarify: Luxor
>is not a subset or clone of Mozilla XUL, instead Luxor
>is a cleaned up, "legacy-free" XUL version.
Then use a different acronym.
> For example, Luxor doesn't support Mozilla's XUL
>specific template syntax using <template> tags;
>instead Luxor lets you use Apache Velocity, XSL/T or
>Jelly. Luxor doesn't force you to use RDF for
>datamodels but lets you use XML+XPath, JDBC,
>Collections and much more. Luxor sports new tags such
>as <datagrid>, <portal>, <portlet>, <choice> and so
>on.
Then use a different acronym.
>> If I ask for XUL, I'm looking for the XUL defined by
>> Mozilla, whether or
>> not it's in the Mozilla context.
>
> I guess you haven't grasped the concept of
>competition, either. You might wonna study Microsoft
>further. Your Microsoft Office 2003 and XML talk
>slides are a good start online @
>http://simonstl.com/articles/officeXML Why not
>revisit your InfoPath (Microsoft XML Forms) slide @
>http://simonstl.com/articles/officeXML/infopath.html
>
> If I may quote:
>
><quote>
>Reinventing XForms. Microsoft has fairly consistently
>denied any competition between InfoPath and the W3C's
>XForms work in profess, but both are definitely
>working on the same problem set with some different
>approaches and features.
><quote>
>
>and
>
><quote>
>Proprietary built on Common. The guts of InfoPath are
>familiar JavaScript, XML, and CSS, but they're
>extended and integrated with a new set of tools that
>isn't publicly available or specified cooperatively.
></quote>
>
> See the connection.
You may see a connection. All I see is quotes you've taken out of
context. XForms strikes me as specified cooperatively already, so I'm
not sure why you think I'd support yet-another-reinvention.
>For XUL to move foward it needs
>to break free from Mozilla and as you say "specified
>cooperatively".
If you want to specify a XUL-like concoction cooperatively, you might
want to gather the players. That'd be a lot easier, once again, if you
used a different acronym.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
