On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 02:45:35PM +0100, Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > 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.
I've never heard that, but it sounds interesting. > 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? Depends on what you're using the editors for: if you want visitors to edit some content, why limit yourself to mozilla? OTOH, the same case can be made against javascript. Joost. _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
