Lists Home |
Date Index |
> XUL is not a bad idea Gerald, it was simply badly
> implemented, badly
> marketed, badly supported. And this doesn't suppress
> the fact that you have
> probably invested a lot of efforts into your site,
> simply that you do not
> have the resource to push that into the market and
> that Mozilla was a living
> dead (or sleeping beauty) for a long time.
Didier, just to get the story straight. XUL stands
for XML UI Language and is not bound to Mozilla. XUL
is a language family to use XML to build rich UIs.
For example, if you look at Microsoft XUL or at
Macromedia XUL or at Luxor XUL and so on you will find
- suprise, suprise - that everybody is using the
<button> tag to create buttons. (Of course, the
high-minded W3C academics had to reinvent the wheel
and insist on using <trigger> in XForms.)
Anyway, your analysis about possible XUL adoption is
also completely flawed. If you can learn on thing from
history, it's that big players (e.g. Micromedia,
Microsoft, etc.) ignore standards and instead push
their own wares. The only proven way to build a rich
internet for everyone is to threaten their inbred
clunker with free open-source alternatives.
Unfortunately, it takes quite a while to build up the
code base as most people prefer to free ride and play
the arm chair critic. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca