On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 18:54 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Great -- start up a new body to standardise it (since the "XUL alliance"
> has failed to get any standardisation done in its years of existence) and
> go with it.
> ...
> WHATWG has no official status. It claims even less of an official
> stat
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Gerald Bauer wrote:
>
> The goal of the XUL alliance for now is *not* to create a new spec.
Holy mackrel, you actually answered one of the questions I asked about two
years ago. Wow. Does this mean we can expect you to answer some of my
other questions? (The ones you asked me
Hello Ian,
> since the "XUL alliance"
> has failed to get any standardisation done in its
> years of existence
The goal of the XUL alliance for now is *not* to
create a new spec. If you care to check out the
sourceforge project blurb, it states:
The XUL (XML User Interface Language) project
Hi,
Well, if a web application document loads in Netscape 4 it will probably
stop to be a web application, so I don't get the point why it needs to
be backward compatible. Mozilla has XUL and yet it can display any html,
xhtml page and much more.
I tend to Mozilla XUL because it exists and look
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Karl Pongratz wrote:
>
> XUL Basic sounds really cool.
Great -- start up a new body to standardise it (since the "XUL alliance"
has failed to get any standardisation done in its years of existence) and
go with it.
Many people agree with you -- for example the SVG folk agree (
Hello,
> I really don't understand what this solves. If your
> advocating that HTML support basic XUL (which is the
> implication) then you may as well
> just advocate that all browsers support XUL. In
> which case, XUL doesn't
> need to be part of HTML but instead an alternative
> markup for w
On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 08:33 -0700, Gerald Bauer quoted Ian Hickson:
> Don't think of it as XUL, just think of it as HTML
> extensions. Then it's just HTML...
Yuck.
I really don't understand what this solves. If your advocating that
HTML support basic XUL (which is the implication) then you may
Hi,
XUL Basic sounds really cool. Can't WHAT just forget about the html
thing? I don't require to run my web apps in IE 5, Opera 5 or Netscape 4
and who wants html in 2 years from now? If Mozilla/Opera//Safari/FlashMX
would all support such XUL Basic that would open an entirely new world,
someh
Hello,
allow me to quote Ian "Hixie" Hickson on the XUL
Basic Spec proposal:
The parts of XUL that make sense for this work will
indeed be merged into the Web Apps spec.
Matthew Raymond comments:
Interesting. This would probably be an appropriate
solution. I'm concerned that we may be
Hello,
Matthew Raymond has kicked off a discussion at the
new WHAT WG mailinglist titled "Suggestion for a
Specification: XUL Basic".
Matthew writes:
I propose that the WHAT WG work on a specification
for a subset of Mozilla XUL that for the purposes of
this message I will call XUL Basic.
On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 06:53 -0700, Gerald Bauer wrote:
> 1. Standards are something the underdogs like to wave
> in front of people's noses
Not true. Depends on the body implementing a standard and, depends on
the standard. For instance, Microsoft adheres to most low-level
standards (otherwise t
Hello,
allow me to forward a mail by Marc Clifton (of
MyXAML fame) where Marc shares the 10 top realistic
opinions about standards.
Here we go:
I see several things, and it surprises me that no one
actually says what I'm about to say (or at least, that
I'm aware of), but then again, I'm
12 matches
Mail list logo
