(sorry for the double-post. Wasn't paying attention to the default format. Not sure how to delete the previous post after submission)
Thanks for the information Jeremey and I say the following respectfully...
It's still Gecko and not all of these browsers incorporate XUL. K-Meleon, for example, has versions with/without XUL, portable versions, etc. Alot of the elements used in XUL can already be implemented using commonplace techniques. Many of the browsers you listed aren't even in the same league as the big four (IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari). Let's not forget the number of alternative engines out there (Lynx) and older OSes (yes, including IE on older M.S. OSes) that are still in use. It's not like XUL hasn't been around for a while.
Implementing client-side tech for one rendering engine (no matter how many off-shots exist for it) and building sites around a specific technology causes the same kinds of problems we had with IE. For example, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Opera (a viable alternative browser) except issues arising out of sites writing to specific browsers. I'm not a big fan of MS but they have a strategy that has worked -- before they introduce proprietary tech, they involve as many 3rd parties effected and make sure that issues are lessened.
Mozilla has introduced "new" tech (some time back...) and by doing so they need to proactively get the other major players involved.
There's a ton of web 2.0 stuff out there that's server-based (frameworks including java,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, and so many others) with which just about anything is possible (including desktop-type interfaces) and will run on any browser. We're now at a point that pages are once again being written to specific browsers (Yahoo Mail and Hotmail are good examples) and it leaves some of the other developers out there being forced to make choices they really don't need to.
I looked over the links you provided and I must say it's impressive and easy to follow technology. I see immediate benefits for kiosks, lan-users, bringing online apps offline, proprietary business applications with easy Lan&Remote-based administration (though many are already doing this by running lamp, wimp tech locally), etc.. I also see long-term negatives in regard to small devices with limited resources (Nokia800, PocketPCs, smartphones).
Another useful and impartial link is at: <a href="http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/01/31/xul-enhanced-web-apps.html" title="xml.com">http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/01/31/xul-enhanced-<nobr>w<wbr></nobr> eb-apps.html</a xml.com>
Some of the samples are extraordinary - terrific, in fact! But they only work on my Gecko-based browsers (Firefox, K-Meleon) - which is to say they only run on the same rendering engine; and not Opera and IE (not to mention other alternative engines I run locally for testing).
I wish Mozilla the best with XUL but if this technology is going to see the light of day (and I hope it does), they need to pro-actively work with other browser developers (seek them out, provide extensive support, etc). In the meantime I'll keep slamming sites that force me to switch browsers when there is no reason to.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:The code that binds.
Posted by: twocents on March 16, 2007 03:24 AMThanks for the information Jeremey and I say the following respectfully...
It's still Gecko and not all of these browsers incorporate XUL. K-Meleon, for example, has versions with/without XUL, portable versions, etc. Alot of the elements used in XUL can already be implemented using commonplace techniques. Many of the browsers you listed aren't even in the same league as the big four (IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari). Let's not forget the number of alternative engines out there (Lynx) and older OSes (yes, including IE on older M.S. OSes) that are still in use. It's not like XUL hasn't been around for a while.
Implementing client-side tech for one rendering engine (no matter how many off-shots exist for it) and building sites around a specific technology causes the same kinds of problems we had with IE. For example, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Opera (a viable alternative browser) except issues arising out of sites writing to specific browsers. I'm not a big fan of MS but they have a strategy that has worked -- before they introduce proprietary tech, they involve as many 3rd parties effected and make sure that issues are lessened.
Mozilla has introduced "new" tech (some time back...) and by doing so they need to proactively get the other major players involved.
There's a ton of web 2.0 stuff out there that's server-based (frameworks including java,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, and so many others) with which just about anything is possible (including desktop-type interfaces) and will run on any browser. We're now at a point that pages are once again being written to specific browsers (Yahoo Mail and Hotmail are good examples) and it leaves some of the other developers out there being forced to make choices they really don't need to.
I looked over the links you provided and I must say it's impressive and easy to follow technology. I see immediate benefits for kiosks, lan-users, bringing online apps offline, proprietary business applications with easy Lan&Remote-based administration (though many are already doing this by running lamp, wimp tech locally), etc.. I also see long-term negatives in regard to small devices with limited resources (Nokia800, PocketPCs, smartphones).
Another useful and impartial link is at:
<a href="http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/01/31/xul-enhanced-web-apps.html" title="xml.com">http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/01/31/xul-enhanced-<nobr>w<wbr></nobr> eb-apps.html</a xml.com>
Some of the samples are extraordinary - terrific, in fact! But they only work on my Gecko-based browsers (Firefox, K-Meleon) - which is to say they only run on the same rendering engine; and not Opera and IE (not to mention other alternative engines I run locally for testing).
I wish Mozilla the best with XUL but if this technology is going to see the light of day (and I hope it does), they need to pro-actively work with other browser developers (seek them out, provide extensive support, etc). In the meantime I'll keep slamming sites that force me to switch browsers when there is no reason to.
#