Lists Home |
Date Index |
> IMHO we don't need another spec. What we do need
> is more implementations of existing standards that
> will free us from vendor lockin. Where is the
> browser that will render a mixed, XForms based
Well, using SVG to replace XUL is wishfull thinking.
SVG is markup for rich 2D graphics. XUL is markup for
rich widgets (e.g. windows, wizards, dialogs, trees,
datagrids, splitters, menus, toolbars, and so on).
If you build a complete cross-browser widget set
than you'll end up with the whole DHTML
today all over again. Just imagine when every SVG page
includes its own widget library in SVG. Why not attach
a copy of Windows with every page instead? Isn't a
binary transfer more efficient?
By the way, why include MathML in your standards
portfolio when you can easily use SVG to render
> Where is my XForms2XUL or XForms2XHTML converter?
Well, XForms and XUL don't compete. XForms is a
databinding architecture. XUL is a user interface
Also note that XForms is a next-gen Web form markup
language, and, thus, you can hardly break it down to
> All I want to point out is that there is no need for
> more standards when we are so far behind on
> implementing the basics.
Well, dozens of free open-source XUL
players/browsers exit already. Thus, the next step is
to get them to work together.
> PS: What's not free regarding Mozilla's XUL+XBL
> implementation? I would
> avoid putting Moz in the mini-vendor empire list.
Well, why not ask the Mozilla folks what they think
about non-Mozilla/non-Gecko XUL players/browsers such
as Luxor, Ibex, Thinlet, and so on. For some insight
browse the posts from Ian Hickson on the xul-talk
PS: There's no such thing as a Mozilla XUL+XBL
implementation. You also need at least XPCOM and RDF,
thus you end up with a Mozilla
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca