On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Gerald Bauer wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, we stopped working on the XUL spec itself when XUL Planet started documenting XUL in more detail than we had time to do ourselves: http://www.xulplanet.com/ > If you care so much about Mozilla XUL why don't finish up what you > started? Time constraints mainly. > 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. It seems to me that you are in denial. There are multiple _applications_ written in XUL, including two mail programs, two browsers, a calendar, two editors, a JavaScript debugger, an IRC client, a DOM inspector, a blogging system, etc. Various companies (OEOne comes to mind) have built entire platforms on XUL. All of the above are in active development -- XUL most definitely isn't "dead". >> 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? Most of the current XUL work is being done within standards organisations with strict NDA policies. If you are a ISO, W3C, ECMA, or IETF member let me know and I can show you the relevant links if you are a member of the appropriate one. > Just because you work as a test bunny for Opera doesn't mean that Opera > is going to support Mozilla XUL. Get real. Actually I'm in R&D and report to the CTO, but that's another story... > Also note, that Apple chose Safari because Apple sees XUL as a threat to > its own APIs. Actually I am intimately familiar with the reasons behind Apple's decision to use KHTML to develop Safari, and can assure you XUL was not related to the decision at all. That they immediately hired one of XUL's editors, and that said editor is still working on XUL, should tell you whether they consider XUL a threat or not. I'm still waiting for your "open XUL" effort to begin, not to mention still waiting for the answers to the two e-mails I sent many months ago on this mailing list. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' ------------------------------------------------------- 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
