David Hyatt wrote:
> We need first to identify which embedding APIs are relevant for XUL.
right, that's part of what this exercise is about. I suspect many of
them are relevant though. session history and global history are already
used in both worlds (as well as some others). The embedding ifaces are
designed primarily w/ simplicity and high level browser functionality in
mind. the more advanced stuff XUL offers, does so at lower levels.
> Although some simplify things for XUL, other APIs are complicated and
> unnecessary when you live directly within the DOM. Many of the
> embedding APIs are unnecessary in the XUL world, and they should not
> be used by the XUL client.
agreed. in the back of my mind, XUL apps essentially just throw a flag
(which largely can be done today in an embedding app, using private
methods (adamlock can elaborate)) that allow their windows to host
chrome. If this is done at the top-level window level, viola, you have a
XUL app. If it's not, you have an "embedding app."
Jud
