Friday March 24th, 2000
Time for another weekend discussion. The question this weekend:
What do you feel is an appropriate level of integration between a browser and an Operating System? And at the other end of the spectrum, what are your feelings about Mozilla's cross-platform approach?
#60 Re: XPCOM and XUL are the future
by ttielkes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Monday March 27th, 2000 8:23 AM
You are replying to this message
>I don't know about XPCOM, but the XUL being hard problem can be solved easily with a XUL editor.
A GUI layout tool is worth nothing if it isn't connected to the rest of the IDE. These things take -years- to build and perfect. What tools are there *today* to use?
>> If Mozilla wants to be able to run similar apps (DHTML UI and XML data), it better get some good XML support.
>Moz runs on XML, Moz itself uses DOM for it's UI. As for DHTML UI? Well, if it can do XUL, DHTML is nothing...
"Runs on XML"? Come on..
Please show me how to load XML into a DOM in a Mozilla ECMAScript. Please show me how I can POST this XML doc over the web in an easy way.
If Mozilla "runs on XML" so great, show me how to include XML into my web pages in an easy way, how to bind UI elements to XML data, how to persist XML cross-session, et cetera..
And XUL? Is't very nice, but that's not the think I'm talking about. If I can build W3C DOM conformant DHTML UIs in IE5, why bother with some non-standard layout format?
>> IE4 had *TWO* XMLDOM parsers (C++ and Java) and an XML DSO (databinding). This was back in 1997.
>Expat is not good enough?
Expat has no DOM, no validation. Don't start about Schemas, XSL(T), XPath or ...
If you think it *is* good enough, give me an example of how I can parse an XML file from my server inside an HTML page from my server.
>> To me, it seems the Mozilla vision is: "We're going to build a nice HTML renderer".
>Where did you get that?
I got that from trying to build something with it.
As for vision, take 3 minutes to read this: <http://davenet.userland.c…999/11/06/theAncientGeeks>