Hi all,
I have recently taken second look at using XUL for a new project and was disappointed for the same reason why I abandoned the idea first time: the syntax. You see, I really like the idea of having a user interface language which is delivered to the browser and which enables a rich interface to the end user without round trips to the server. The concept is clear and I most definitely am in support of it. My only concern, and this is a big one, is that I feel that XML is inappropriate for scripting (which is essentially what we are talking about when it comes to building user interfaces).
XML (and HTML) are document mark up languages. They perform a this task very well but are completely inappropriate as scripting languages. XUL isn't the only perpetrator in this regard, another classic example of an inappropriate use of XML is in ant build scripts.
I really believe that XUL would be much better off if it lost the X and was just a browser interpretable scripting language (JavaScript?) which was used for describing user interfaces. I would encourage everyone to have a look at the following article which discusses some of the issues of using XML in place of a scripting language: http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2003/06/10/jython.html.
Regards, Dominic.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
