On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Gerald Bauer wrote: >>> >>> If you care so much about Mozilla XUL why don't >>> finish up what you started? >> >> Time constraints mainly. > > Ian, that says it all. If you care about XUL and if XUL is important too > you than you make it a priority. Saying you're too busy with other > things just shows you don't give a damn.
I think working on standardisation of XUL and the technologies that underpin XUL (like the flexible box model, the DOM extensions, XBL, and so forth) is more important than finishing the XUL spec, especially given that xulplanet.com is doing an admirable job of documenting XUL. What exactly would finishing the spec achieve? People are actively using the technology without any problems that a spec would resolve. > Why not, for example, give up your day job and start your own business? > After all XUL is the future, isn't it? XUL is no more the future than C++ or XForms. It's silly to build a business model around a technology; businesses are built around products, services and customers. >> 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. > > Whom do you try to intimitate? Nobody. I'm under NDA from one of the above groups, in which XUL is being discussed. If you are under NDA from the same group I can show you the relevant documentation. > IETF works using mailinglists using a "no kings and queens" policy. Can > you point me to some posts that touch on XUL? Or how about ISO? Is ISO > cooking up a XUL spec for 2025? Like I said, I'm under NDA on that topic, so I can't answer that directly. > Just get real. If you design XUL using a closed door policy you're not > getting anywhere. XML was designed using a closed door policy. Does that mean XML will go nowhere? If so, why are you using it for your declarative UI language? > Why not ask David if Apple allows him to sneak in XUL into Safari for > some enlightenment? I can't answer that directly. However, let's see if this gives you an idea of what I'm referring to. XForms recently reached REC status at the W3C. XForms is an XML-based usier interface description language for client-server applications. Both Apple and Opera were strongly against this initially: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2003Sep/0006.html ...but later changed their mind slightly: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2003Sep/0017.html So Apple and Opera are working together in UI-related areas, and both employ people who were editors of the XUL spec, and both are requesting that the W3C continue existing work on non-XForms based UI solutions. I'll let you draw the conclusions you can from that (since I can't spell it out due to NDAs). > Ian, the XUL Alliancen uses a different approach to standardization. > First, you build XUL motors/browsers/runtimes and then you work on > interoperability and later on standardization. When will the work on interoperabiity start? > PS: If you report to the CTO at Opera why not show him the light and add > XUL to your browser. What makes you think that isn't what I'm doing? > Ian, for Sun XUL is a clear platform threat. Sun doesn't support XUL but > only supports a free browser. One built on XUL? Why would they pay people to work on something that was a "clear platform threat" for them? -- 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
