[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gerald Bauer wrote:
>>Given technologies such as XBL or SVG's RCC (which
>>would naturally further integrate things such as
>>XForms), what advantage do you see in
>>having a standardised XUL?
>
> The point of XUL (XML UI Language) is to keep it
> simple, stupid.
That's a fine approach, but is it compatible with it being standardised? :)
> XUL is here today and it works. The
> only problem is that there are dozens of different XUL
> dialects and varieties.
But isn't that because you can't get more than three people (and even
that is ambitious) to agree on what's needed in a GUI? The advantage of
XBL/RCC/whatever-binding-tech-but-there-should-be-only-one is precisely
that you can allow people to differ, and still to use a common standard
and common implementations.
Implementing XUL and its variations could be done just as quickly, if
not quicker, using XBL/RCC/etc. with the bonus of allowing people more
freedom.
> You will likely need a year just to figure out
> how build your own simple <button> tag using SVG-RSS,
> XForms and XBL.
Hmmm no. Examples on xml.com, mozilla.org, ibm.com, seem to show that's
pretty much not the case.
> PS: XBL stands for XML Binding Language and is
> bascially nothing more than a CORBA-like IDL
> (Interface Definition Language) that lets you "plugin"
> your own XUL tags written in C/C++, for example. If
> you use C#, Java, Python or any other modern language
> that supports reflection (that is, built-in runtime
> type information) you don't need the useless XBL
> bloat.
No that's certainly not anywhere near a good description of XBL.
--
Robin Berjon
|
