We do need to remember who lost the browser wars :)
There is a tradeoff, however.
Flash can do somethings (the smackdown at Fig Leaf comes to mind) that
would be difficult with XUL.
But for the kinds of things I normally do, Flash is a little heavy,
constraining and difficult to develop. (the latter somewhat mitigated
by Flex)
So I, and my clients have the options:
1) Use your (non-Mozilla) browser of choice for the app and sacrifice
performance and UI
2) Use Mozilla for this app and have a better overall user experience
(maybe at less development cost).
I can just as easily include a Mozilla Dload bug in my app as I can a
Flash plugin Bug -- so distro/install of Mozilla is not a problem.
I also have some local capabilities in XUL that are not available in
Flash.
It is possible, just possible, that the additional
capabilities/performance of the XUL implementation of the app would
make the browser choice incidental (to run that app).
I also like the fact that I can develop and host XUL apps with CFMX,
and at no additional software costs. XUL is free!
I like having the option!
HTH
Dick
On Apr 6, 2004, at 8:40 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
> > > XUL is platform independent -- anywhere Mozilla runs, XUL
> > > runs
> >
> > potent stuff isnt it?��Kinda makes you rethink application
> > design and chucks out the window the need to learn flash to
> > make a ria.
>
> Except for the fact that very few people use Mozilla. I use it, and
> like it,
> but if I wanted to provide an application that everyone could use
> without
> having to download and install a browser, I'd choose Flash.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> phone: 202-797-5496
> fax: 202-797-5444
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
