- From: Neil Deakin <enndeakin@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:22:30 -0500
>There are some other "interesting" characteristics of original XUL, like the >ways it uses RDF and to some extent particulars of its integration with CSS, >but it is a pioneering technology and rough edges are natural. The term >"XUL" is, interestingly, starting to be genericized to refer to any "XML >User Interface Language" even things like XForms and XAML > The Mozilla Foundation has been trying to clarify that this is not the case for some time. > (e.g. >xulplanet.org's "XUL Grand Coding Challenge" included many solutions that >were not XUL compatible at all). > XULPlanet has never hosted such a thing. You may be confused by the "Open XUL Alliance" which is the primary source of the confusion over the XUL name. XUL refers only to the XML user interface language used by Mozilla applications. > In that spirit it would seem interesting to >consider creating a "XUL 2.0" (much more so than further Street HTML >bolt-ons for desktop apps). Even though it might not end up strictly XUL 1.0 >compatible that doesn't seem to be a big issue (XUL 1.0 barring a few >experimental efforts is basically used for Mozilla-based browser chrome not >full-scale standalone apps). > So are you referring to browser-based applications or standalone applications? If the former, then you would want something that works in browsers, which is the one goal of Web Forms 2.0. I don't think the intent of Web Forms 2.0 is to allow one to build "rich native applications", but to build web pages with improved form entry mechanisms. / Neil
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 14:22:30 UTC