W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2004

[whatwg] Web Applications Markup Language 1.0 is an XUIL?

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:03:10 -0400
Message-ID: <410FFD8E.3020506@earthlink.net>
Ian Hickson wrote:
>> I've noticed that Web Apps 1.0 has recently changed its name to Web 
>> Applications Markup Language 1.0 (WAML1).
> 
> Actually that's been the name in that spec since before WHATWG was 
> announced.

    Oops. Somehow I never notices that...

> I don't really understand the term "XUIL", though, it's a bit like 
> "UUIL" ("Unicode User Interface Language") or "UILUET" ("User Interface 
> Language Using English Tags") -- highlighting one minor aspect of the 
> language to the exclusion of others.

    It's a category of extensible markup languages used for constructing 
user interfaces. It's not supposed to be too specific, as it describes 
more than one language. Then again, you should know this, since you 
invented the term:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6919373

>> 1) Will WAML1 be a part of "HTML5", or is it an independent technology 
>> that can be used as a subset of "HTML5" in much the same way that 
>> XForms is used by XHTML 2.0?
> 
> The intention is that what we have informally been calling "HTML5" is 
> what is specified as HTML4 + Web Forms + Web Apps. So it is intended to 
> be a part of HTML5.

    If this is the case, I'd prefer that it be called "Web Apps 1.0". 
Calling part of something that already is a language a "language" is 
just confusing.

>> 2) While WAML1 elements require a namespace? If so, how will this be 
>> handled in HTML user agents that don't support namespaces?
> 
> This will be handled identically to the way HTML4/XHTML 1.1 and Web 
> Forms 2.0 handle it.

    So generally, there are no namespaces unless you're using a mixed 
XML document.

>> 3) Will "graceful degradation" be possible with WAML1 elements?
> 
> Again, the idea is that it will be the same as for Web Forms 2. (Whether 
> this means the answer to your question is "no" or "yes" depends on 
> whether you are Jim or not, I guess.)

    Hmm. Makes sense, considering the nature of WF2.

>> 4) Will WAML1 borrow heavily from existing web-based XUILs, such as 
>> XUL 1.0, or will it be a complete reinvention?
> 
> It's an extension of HTML4. The primary concern is compatibility with 
> HTML documents and UAs in the various ways that have been discussed on 
> this list before. So it will be heavily influenced by HTML, and will of 
> course be influenced by all the other languages that all the people 
> contributing to Web Apps have experience with.

    So, as long as we use markup that fits into the HTML4 model, there's 
nothing really stopping us from using markup from an XUIL, correct?
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 14:03:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:36 UTC