>> The Mozilla XUL "spec" is dead anyway. It hasn't >> been updated for years. > > I think you are confusing "dead" with "stable". XML > hasn't changed in > "years" either, does that mean XML is dead?
Ian, wake up. If you browse over the Mozilla XUL "spec" you will see that it's just an incomplete draft missing core chapters. Calling it stable is a joke. If you care so much about Mozilla XUL why don't finish up what you started? > XUL is not bound to Mozilla (others have implemented > it) and is as open as > any standard can be (input is welcome from anyone > and there are no > restrictions on its implementation). Ian, just reread all the nonsense you spread on this mailinglist to see that the Mozilla XUL leadership is non-existant and that the Mozilla XUL "spec" is a dead piece of paper that hardly qualifies for a foundation for a next-gen browser. > Note that XUL has editors who currently work for > Apple, Opera, Mozilla > Foundation, and others. Despite what you say above, > XUL _is_ in active > development, we are currently taking feedback into > account and are > more carefully defining the XUL box model. Can you put some evidence behind your claim? Where, for example, can I find the Mozilla XUL mailinglist? What changes have been made to the spec recently? Just because you work as a test bunny for Opera doesn't mean that Opera is going to support Mozilla XUL. Get real. Also note, that Apple chose Safari because Apple sees XUL as a threat to its own APIs. You might wonna pick up some business books to read up on the real world. - Gerald ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program. Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open Source Community? Make a contribution, and help us add new features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
