MozillaZine

XBL Submission to the W3C

Friday February 23rd, 2001

Ian Hickson writes:
"Earlier today, the W3C acknowledged the XBL Specification that AOL submitted on behalf of Mozilla.org. This is the first document to be published on the W3C site that has "Mozilla" written all over it, and so is a great reason for rejoicing!!!

The next step is for the CSS Working Group within the W3C to discuss the submission in more depth, with a view to come up with a W3C Recommendation which is liked by all those concerned (including the competition of course)."

You can also read what the W3C thought of XBL. A great day for Mozilla indeed!


#1 XBL Rocks!

by ERICmurphy <murphye@gmail.com>

Friday February 23rd, 2001 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

I love XBL. I am going to create my own widget set for Jabberzilla using it.

<http://mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=167> if you are interested in what I am planning. Some of this stuff I already have working.

XBL allows another level of componentization that really makes things easy in implementing Mozilla applications.

#2 Re: XBL Rocks!

by ERICmurphy <murphye@gmail.com>

Friday February 23rd, 2001 10:11 PM

Reply to this message

<http://xiowa.com/jabberzilla/screenshot.png> is a screenshot of <roster/> working.

Both the rosters update simultaneously via the Jabber component. Way cool.

#3 AOL written all over it :(

by hwaara <hwaara@chello.se>

Saturday February 24th, 2001 7:14 PM

Reply to this message

Actually (and unfortunately) the w3 page says that the submission is from AOL iirc.

:(

#4 Re: AOL written all over it :(

by hwaara <hwaara@chello.se>

Saturday February 24th, 2001 7:15 PM

Reply to this message

Quote from the page:

"W3C is pleased to receive the XBL submission ("XML Binding Language 1.0") from America Online, Inc."

Man that sucks!

#5 Read it again....

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Saturday February 24th, 2001 7:24 PM

Reply to this message

"The submission was developed through mozilla.org. The document is being submitted to the W3C by America Online, Inc on behalf of itself and mozilla.org."

Mozilla.org is not a member of the w3c, so they asked for AOL to submit it on it's behalf. Please don't post flamebait.

#6 Re: Read it again....

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday February 25th, 2001 12:26 AM

Reply to this message

Also to add that the XBL specification page has David Hyatt's name on it, who I'm sure some of you are familiar with his contributions as a mozilla.org developer, and there's a copyright for mozilla.org there too.

Alex <:3)~~

#13 Re: AOL written all over it :(

by erik <erik@eae.net>

Tuesday February 27th, 2001 11:41 PM

Reply to this message

Well, Mozilla is funded by AOL. Without AOL no Mozilla :-(

#15 Re: Re: AOL written all over it :(

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday February 28th, 2001 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is funded by anyone willing to pay someone to work on the project or to donate equipment or to work on the project themselves. AOL is one such player in this game but definitely not the only one. There are many engineers paid to work on Mozilla that are employed by companies other than AOL. There are many folks making mozilla better on their own time. There are many groups contributing equipment and other resources to Mozilla.

"Without AOL no Mozilla" is total bullshit. Without AOL slower progress on making Mozilla better, yes, I'd accept that but if you're not the troll you appear to be and you actually believe what you're saying, that without AOL Mozilla ceases to exist, then you're completely out of touch with this project your comments should be ignored. If the more likely case is true, that you're just a troll, then take your bs to slashdot or some other forum.

--Asa

#16 Re: AOL written all over it :(

by erik <erik@eae.net>

Thursday March 1st, 2001 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe I did express myself badly. Netscape/AOL released the source. Netscape/AOL are paying most of the engineers working on Mozilla but I think that even if AOL pulled all its fundings for Mozilla it is here to stay. If AOL pulled its funding of Mozilla that would probably be the hardest blow imaginary.

#7 Spice

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday February 25th, 2001 4:02 PM

Reply to this message

At the bottom of the page <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/05/Comment> there is a link to Spice. Has anyone at Mozilla taken a look at it?

#14 Re: Spice

by erik <erik@eae.net>

Tuesday February 27th, 2001 11:43 PM

Reply to this message

Wow... Spice seems a lot more powerful and easier to use than XBL. It just sucks that we will have behaviors, xbl and a w3c format.

#17 Re: Re: Spice

by strauss

Thursday March 1st, 2001 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

Spice is a lot cleaner than XBL, which (as the W3C noted) spreads code out between HTML, CSS, XML, and JavaScript -- a big mess. But as the W3C also noted, Spice does not seem to do anything for reducing the amount of procedural code involved in writing user interfaces, and so does not satisfy the "principle of least power."

This pragmatically means that neither XBL nor Spice move toward the goal of allowing user interfaces to be created by non-programmers.

It seems all the proposals on the table are inadequate.

Lee

PS. Did anyone look at the XBL example at <http://www.shadowland.org/xbl/test5/test.html> ? It looks like crap on my Windows 2K system with Netscape 6. Is this even a proof of concept? The interaction capabilities are nice but if you can't deliver a professional appearance, forget it!

#18 Re: Re: Re: Spice

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Thursday March 1st, 2001 5:53 PM

Reply to this message

"The interaction capabilities are nice but if you can't deliver a professional appearance, forget it!"

Ahh, did you read that page's title? ("Test #5") Did you note which menu the link to it is under in Mozilla? ("Debug")

It's a test, for debugging. It isn't a 100% polished, all singing, all dancing, killer post-it-note application. It was used to test and debug XBL. It's useful as an example. It isn't useful as an application. How many teach-yourself books give you 100% complete applications with a professional appearance? Not many.

Given that it was constructed using XHTML, ECMAScript and CSS, it *would* be possible to make it look and work as professionally as any web site out there, but why bother for a demo meant for testing and debugging?

#19 Re: Re: Re: Re: Spice

by strauss

Thursday March 1st, 2001 6:28 PM

Reply to this message

Show me. Do it.

I've seen lots of bad dialogs on Mac Mozilla that seemed to have to do with string size differences. This demo seems to have a very similar problem. Can XBL solve that problem or not?

Lee

#21 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spice

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Sunday March 4th, 2001 10:55 PM

Reply to this message

"Show me. Do it."

I really can't be bothered, I'm too busy working on a real XBL aplication..

#22 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spice

by strauss

Monday March 5th, 2001 12:13 PM

Reply to this message

Cool, how are you dealing with string size differences between platforms?

#23 Re: Spice

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Tuesday March 6th, 2001 4:09 PM

Reply to this message

I guess I'm not. I've never seen the problem, so I don't feel too incliened to deal with it.

#24 Re: Re: Spice

by strauss

Wednesday March 7th, 2001 12:08 PM

Reply to this message

Do you mean that you've tested your program on multiple platforms and it has not had a string sizing problem, or do you mean that you haven't seen the problem because you've only tested the program on one platform?

#20 Re: Re: Re: Re: Spice

by strauss

Thursday March 1st, 2001 6:30 PM

Reply to this message

BTW, in case it wasn't clear -- this demo is linked from the W3C XBL submission. I didn't get to it from a Mozilla link. If you can create a professional demonstration, it's bizarre to only link to a substandard one in your formal proposal to a standards board.

Lee

#8 comments not positive

by strauss

Monday February 26th, 2001 2:03 PM

Reply to this message

It does not appear to me that the comments at <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/05/Comment> are positive.

Lee

#10 Their alternate ideas seem a bit...

by mozineAdmin

Monday February 26th, 2001 4:07 PM

Reply to this message

...shall we say, "lacking"?

#12 Re: Their alternate ideas seem a bit...

by strauss

Monday February 26th, 2001 5:52 PM

Reply to this message

What lacks do you perceive?

Lee

#11 Re: comments not positive

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday February 26th, 2001 5:28 PM

Reply to this message

It would seem that they don't like the idea of a CSS/XML/Javascript combination. They are suggesting Spice <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-spice-19980123.html> , which is based on ECMAScript. I'm sure someone can create a Spice like system via XBL/DOM/Javascript.

#9 XBL security

by strauss

Monday February 26th, 2001 4:03 PM

Reply to this message

I looked for any reference to "security" on the proposal and couldn't find any. What are the security implications of XBL?

Less