Joost Diepenmaat wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 02:26:55PM +0100, Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > > > Yes, XUL would be nice too :-) Perhaps even nicer, because it is a more open > > standard, isn't it? I think this is what google uses for all those cool > > apps, the spit out recently? > > I think google just makes really heavy use of javascript (esp. XMLHTTP > see: http://jibbering.com/2002/4/httprequest.html ) > > which has the advantage of not being tied to a single implementation (if > you do it right).
I think I've read that they implement it in XUL and then simply automaticly translate it to dhtml, but I may be mistaken. Anyhow, I myself would not find it a problem to have editors that only work on mozilla-browsers. On the contrary: it is a plus! I mean, for a web-editor there is no excuse for not having installed firefox, is there? Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
