XUL was created by the folks at Mozilla specifically for the purpose
of defining the user-interface for their newer browsers, hence the
need for Moz. or FF. It's not so much "modern" browsers as it is
"Mozilla" browsers - although I wouldn't be surprised to see it expand
to be supported by other browsers, it's not (currently) a heralded
standard like XHTML or DOM. Although I have recommended / do recommend
DOM as a viable alternative to flash for some interface elements such
as trees and tabs, I wouldn't currently recommend XUL.
<parody of="an Ivan Reitman film">
<voice type="demonic">
... there is no data, only XUL...
</voice>
</parody>
> Another option is XUL.
> It only works with modern browseerv (FF, Mozilla)
> It is mainly XML with some _javascript_
> A little verbose (the XML)
> But doesn't take the CPU resources that Flash does (even
> when idle)
> It is very fast expanding tree menus etc.
> Dick
> On Sep 9, 2004, at 6:44 AM, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
>> > I actually prefer the now dead Adobe Livemotion 2.0 to
>> > flash. I didn't even need to read the manuals to
>> > create
>> > linked rollovers... it had a superior interface and
>> > scripting elemets imo.
>>
>> > Too bad Adobe didn't make enough off it. now I'm left
>> > with
>> > dead software.
>>
>> I'd been told that the IDE (or maybe the player) for it
>> was so heavy
>> handed that it was virtually impossible for a client
>> machine to _use_
>> the software for lack of memory and/or processor power.
>> Could just be
>> hearsay, but that's what I'd heard. If it's true, that
>> would explain
>> why a superior interface and scripting elements wouldn't
>> have helped
>> make it popular.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
