MozillaZine

Mozilla Wins XUL Motor of the Year 2003 Award

Saturday January 3rd, 2004

Gerald Bauer writes: "The Richmond Post — a news blog chronicling the XUL Revolution — announced the winners of the XUL Motor of the Year 2003 award today [Friday]. Mozilla leads the pack with 98 votes (31%) followed by two Java XUL motors (Swix and Thinlet) and a Flash XUL motor (Zulu)."

Given that Mozilla is the only "XUL motor" on the award shortlist to actually support the XUL specification, it is hard to see how anything else could have won. Unless of course you use 'XUL' to mean any XML-based declaritive markup language, in which case you probably also use 'Java' to refer to any object-oriented programming language and 'English' to describe any language that uses the Latin alphabet.


#1 Re: support the XUL specification

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 1:34 PM

Reply to this message

Is there anything else that supports a reasonable subset of it, or tries to?

Also, isn't the XUL supported by Firebird/Thunderbird slightly different to the XUL supported by Seamonkey, or do I have that completely wrong?

#2 Re: Re: support the XUL specification

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 1:38 PM

Reply to this message

"Is there anything else that supports a reasonable subset of it, or tries to?"

I think Zulu supports a subset but it seems to have some other non-standard stuff as well.

"Also, isn't the XUL supported by Firebird/Thunderbird slightly different to the XUL supported by Seamonkey, or do I have that completely wrong?"

No, you're thinking of toolkits. The Mozilla Application Suite uses the XPFE toolkit (or pseudo-toolkit really), while Mozilla Firebird, Mozilla Thunderbird and friends use the new XUL toolkit (could do with a better name there). They're both XUL though.

Alex

#3 hrm...

by mlefevre

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 1:40 PM

Reply to this message

Does anyone care? This, as far as I can see, is the result of a web-poll which got a total of 312 votes. There are more significant polls than that happening in MozillaZine's Afterdark forum.

This is just an invitation for another flamewar (in fact, the article even kicks it off...)

#5 Let's all promote XUL together

by geraldb

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 2:14 PM

Reply to this message

> Does anyone care? This, as far as I can see, is the result of a web-poll which got a total of > 312 votes. There are more significant polls than that happening in MozillaZine's Afterdark > forum.

The point of the Richmond Post poll and the XUL Motor of the Year 2003 award is to promote XUL. As you stated pretty much nobody cares about XUL and that is reflected in the low voter turn out. XUL has great potential to create a rich internet for everyone. However, it won't happen anytime soon unless XUL finds some backers that start to promote it.

#7 Re: Let's all promote XUL together

by jgraham

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

The point of the Richmond Post poll and the XML Interface Description language Motor of the Year 2003 award is to promote XML based interface description languages. As you stated pretty much nobody cares about XML based interfaces and that is reflected in the low voter turn out. An XML based description language, coupled with appropriate bindings, has great potential to create a rich internet for everyone. However, it won't happen anytime soon unless the idea finds some backers that start to promote it.

That wasn't had, was it?

#8 Re: Re: Let's all promote XUL together

by jgraham

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

"hard" even

#9 Re: Let's all promote XUL together

by mlefevre

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 3:07 PM

Reply to this message

I didn't state that. I only wrote "does anyone care", by which I did not mean "does anyone care about XUL", I meant "does anyone care about this blog and this poll".

#17 Re: Re: Let's all promote XUL together

by slugs

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

For that matter with all the sea of XML-based projects out there, your feeling must have been echoed by many :)

As for sponsor, I can't think of anyone better than IBM. But sadly they're busy with their own web service thingy.

#4 Zing!

by kauff

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 1:57 PM

Reply to this message

"Unless of course you use 'XUL' to mean any XML-based declaritive markup language, in which case you probably also use 'Java' to refer to any object-oriented programming language and 'English' to describe any language that uses the Latin alphabet."

Zing!

#6 Re: Zing!

by beastie

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

That's a concept that the "Open XUL Alliance" (I shudder everytime I type that) doesn't seem to be able to grasp. I don't understand how something from this site even became a news article.

#10 Re: Re: Zing!

by mlefevre

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 3:08 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not sure how this made it either. They'll be posting updates from MozillaQuest and andkon.com next...

#11 Re: Re: Re: Zing!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 3:29 PM

Reply to this message

"They'll be posting updates from MozillaQuest..."

All MozillaQuest seem to do now are SCO/IBM articles. Though, rather concerningly, The Register seems to be confusing MozillaZine and MozillaQuest <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34639.html>.

"...and andkon.com next..."

Stranger things have happened. His last Mozilla article <http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozillamarketing/> was fairly good. And <http://www.mozillazine.or…alkback.html?article=3764> was Andkon.

Alex

#12 Re: Re: Re: Re: Zing!

by mlefevre

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 3:45 PM

Reply to this message

His last article was "fairly good"? Does that include the footnote where he accuses you of censorship and being "hypocritical to the whole concept of OPEN source"? Granted, the article is a little more coherent than previous efforts, but that makes it relatively good for Andkon, not "fairly good".

The article about someone rewriting the Mozilla.org site was pointless as well. Rewriting the site had been done before (and better - that rewrite was broken in IE6), and the "redesign" was clearly never going to have any chance of being used.

There must be better stuff to cover than this...

#13 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zing!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 4:00 PM

Reply to this message

"Does that include the footnote where he accuses you of censorship and being 'hypocritical to the whole concept of OPEN source'?"

That's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

As for the article, Hixie thought it was good enough to file a bug <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=227708>. And Andkon claims to have received an email from someone with an @mozilla.org address, who says that s/he "agree[s] with about 80% of your [Andkon's] points" <http://www.andkon.com/index.php?start_from=26>.

Alex

#15 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zing!

by mlefevre

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 4:21 PM

Reply to this message

Of course he's entitled to his opinion. I'm hoping you don't agree...

I also agree with quite a few of his points - in fact, I've ranted about them in newsgroup posts and in forums. That doesn't mean the article is any good - one could make the same points better with less words and less hyperbole.

Hixie's bug is either invalid, or at best it could be a meta bug to track a whole bunch of issues, which should all be separate bugs. If filing general bugs about the website did any good, I'd file more of them, but it doesn't. As it is, the only people currently working on website bugs are volunteers, who can fix minor issues within single pages (Mozilla.org folks have said they are aware of this, and a group is apparently going to be set up to address the issue).

#14 All the XUL News Fit To Print

by geraldb

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 4:14 PM

Reply to this message

> I don't understand how something from this site even became a news article.

Well, dare I say that the Open XUL Alliance site is the world's leading XUL news site.

#16 Re: All the XUL News Fit To Print

by beastie

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 5:40 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not getting into this again.

#24 Just change the name

by BradNeuberg <bkn3@columbia.edu>

Sunday January 4th, 2004 6:41 PM

Reply to this message

Gerald, the crux of the matter seems to be that you have taken the word XUL and made it more generic than many XUL-hackers want. Why don't you just come up with another acronym to refer to applications which create GUIs driven by XML-based user-interfaces? Is that really so hard? Then you can move beyond those who want to split-hairs with you and continue your advocacy work.

Brad Neuberg

#26 You can't please everybody

by geraldb

Monday January 5th, 2004 6:51 AM

Reply to this message

> Then you can move beyond those who want to split-hairs with you and continue your advocacy work.

Brad, I appreciate your idealistic advice. In the real world, however, life isn't that simple and black and white. There's no way you can please everbody. Just witness the endless Pie/Echo/Atom/RSS naming debate as a case study. If the Mozilla folks want to brand their XUL dialect I suggest creating a new name that isn't generic.

#42 Re: You can't please everybody

by beastie

Tuesday January 6th, 2004 8:03 PM

Reply to this message

Uhhh... "XUL" isn't generic. Nobody says it's generic except you.

#46 Renaissance - XUL for Cocoa

by geraldb

Wednesday January 7th, 2004 6:07 PM

Reply to this message

> Uhhh... "XUL" isn't generic. Nobody says it's generic except you.

Sorry to break your bubble. May I point out Kimbro Staken's blog story titled "Renaissance - XUL for Cocoa" online @ <http://www.xmldatabases.o…ance_-_XUL_for_Cocoa.item>

If I may quote: This morning I was playing around with Renaissance which is a XML user interface language for building Mac OS X Cocoa applications. OK, actually it's a XUL for building applications that can target both Mac OS X and GNUStep, but I just call it cool. I've been checking out all the various XUL languages. Obviously, Mozilla XUL is the most well known, but it's far from the only one. I have a lot of ideas for cool stuff to do with a XUL and I'd been thinking a lot about writing one for Cocoa, fortunately I don't have to.

#50 Re: Renaissance - XUL for Cocoa

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 8th, 2004 11:40 AM

Reply to this message

"> Uhhh... 'XUL' isn't generic. Nobody says it's generic except you.

"Sorry to break your bubble. May I point out Kimbro Staken's blog story titled 'Renaissance - XUL for Cocoa' online"

Just because two people say XUL is generic doesn't make it so.

Alex

#43 Re: You can't please everybody

by corwin

Wednesday January 7th, 2004 2:07 AM

Reply to this message

XUL isn't generic, it is a registered brand name owned by Mozilla.org :

"But we do strictly enforce our trademark rights. Our trademarks include, among others, the names Mozilla, Bugzilla and XUL, the Mozilla text logo and the red lizard logo. This means that, while you have considerable freedom to redistribute and modify our software, there are tight restrictions on your ability to use the Mozilla name and logos" <http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html>

So actually, calling any Mozilla.org competetitors' products XUL is infringing the Mozilla Fundation IP.

#48 Re: Re: You can't please everybody

by beastie

Thursday January 8th, 2004 9:33 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder if the geraldb has received permission to use the trademarked term "XUL" out of context.

#51 Re: Re: Re: You can't please everybody

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 8th, 2004 11:41 AM

Reply to this message

"I wonder if the geraldb has received permission to use the trademarked term 'XUL' out of context."

On the contrary. He's received specific requests to stop doing so.

Alex

#54 XML UI Language (XUL) is A Generic Term

by geraldb

Thursday January 8th, 2004 1:19 PM

Reply to this message

You might wonna read up on Ian's nonsense posted to the xul-talk mailinglist online @ <//www.mail-archive.com/xul-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>/msg00104.html" rel="nofollow"><http://www.mail-archive.c…ceforge.net/msg00104.html>

If I may quote: Just to clarify, the claim is that "XUL" is the trademark (pronounced "Zuul" to match other Ghostbusters-related Mozilla technology names), not "XML User Interface Language" or other expansions. We do not claim that "XUI" or "DUIL" or "XAML" or "XAWT" or other such names are trademarks.

To which I respond with some questions that are still unanswered. If I may quote: Can you expand on your claim that "XUL" is a Mozilla trademark but "XML User Interface Language" is not. How come? How do you abbreviate "XML User Interface Language"? ... If XUL is a trademark as you claim, how come that XUIL or XUI or XULUX or jXUL doesn't cause confusion? More online @ <//www.mail-archive.com/xul-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>/msg00105.html" rel="nofollow"><http://www.mail-archive.c…ceforge.net/msg00105.html>

#56 Re: XML UI Language (XUL) is A Generic Term

by jgraham

Friday January 9th, 2004 1:19 AM

Reply to this message

> To which I respond with some questions that are still unanswered

Gerald, in multiple threads over several Mozillazine articles, I have asked you many questions which still reamin unanswered. See <http://www.mozillazine.or…back.html?article=3998#54> for some questions from 21st November 2003 to which I still await answers, for a single example from many. Do you have plans to respond, or are you just in the business of mudslinging and hypocritsy?

#58 Re: Re: XML UI Language (XUL) is A Generic Term

by beastie

Saturday January 10th, 2004 12:20 AM

Reply to this message

And suddenly there was silence...

#55 Refusal on Basis of Descriptiveness

by geraldb

Thursday January 8th, 2004 11:57 PM

Reply to this message

Allow me to quote from US trademark regulation:

1209 Refusal on Basis of Descriptiveness

Extract from 15 U.S.C. §1052.

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it .... (e) Consists of a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them....

Matter that “merely describes” the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used is not registrable on the Principal Register. As noted in In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978):

The major reasons for not protecting such marks are: (1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products.

#57 Re: Refusal on Basis of Descriptiveness

by jgraham

Friday January 9th, 2004 1:37 AM

Reply to this message

Explain to me how the term "XUL" is a generic term that describes the function of the product. In your answer, you shoukd consider the following:

1) There is no evidence from any online trademark search I can find that the expansion of a trademarked acronym is relevant in the slghtest

2) Insofar as I understand the results of the uspto trademark serach, CERN managed to register a trademark on the term html.

#18 Re: What?

by glazou <daniel@glazman.org>

Saturday January 3rd, 2004 9:13 PM

Reply to this message

bwahahahah :-) MozillaZine should post more humour like this, thanks for the 6am laugh :-)

#19 I knew who posted this the second I read the title

by adipose

Sunday January 4th, 2004 12:10 AM

Reply to this message

Gerald tries again to promote his illegitimate attempts to turn XUL into a generic acronym, albeit by posting results that widely favor mozilla.

Look soon on my site for a poll where it's decided that 99% of readers think COBOL is THE best computer operated business oriented language. What COBOL do you use, readers?

-Dan

#20 Re: I knew who posted this the second I read the title

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday January 4th, 2004 3:13 AM

Reply to this message

I thought COBOL meant COmmon Business Oriented Language.

#23 You win

by adipose

Sunday January 4th, 2004 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

I could swear it meant "computer operated" at one point.

Shucks,

Dan

#21 argl

by mcsmurf

Sunday January 4th, 2004 3:46 AM

Reply to this message

why are you posting such crap; that poll was made by Gerald Bauer and we all know what he means by XUL

#22 XUL Champion of the Year 2003 Award

by geraldb

Sunday January 4th, 2004 7:28 AM

Reply to this message

Just to let you know that the Richmond Post also sponsered the world's first XUL Champion of the Year 2003 award. I hope you're not disappointed that your home boy Neil Deakin (of xulplanet.com fame) only made it to the #2 spot. Full story @ <http://xul.sourceforge.ne…rd_and_the_winner_is.html>

#25 XUL Specification?

by vnv

Monday January 5th, 2004 3:17 AM

Reply to this message

BTW, is there any authoritative XUL specification? I failed to find one at the mozilla.org website. The one the link in this article ponits to is incomplete and/or obsolete. Most chapters are simply missing. This well may be the website maintenance issue, but of those available, say, Widgets chapter is marked as being 'under construction' and does not document some widgets (at least, Tree). XUL Programmer's Reference Manual seems to document API as for 2001, and since that there was at least one significant API change (prior to 1.0 release).

#27 We are in the early days

by geraldb

Monday January 5th, 2004 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

> BTW, is there any authoritative XUL specification.

No, there isn't. There are many different XUL dialects out there. Mozilla XUL is just one. In a way XUL repeats the HTML story as everyone tries to push their own tags and cooperation between different projects/vendors is minimial/non-existant. The Open XUL Alliance is the first initiative to help to promote cooperation and interopability as a first step to create a rich internet for everyone.

#30 Question remains

by vnv

Monday January 5th, 2004 10:43 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks, but in fact I was asking about Mozilla XUL, call it the XUL or a XUL. So my question still remains: if authoritative specification of Mozilla XUL is available?

#31 Re: Question remains

by jgraham

Monday January 5th, 2004 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

I believe the answer is 'no' (although I would love to be corrected). I suppose that <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/xul.html> is the incomplete document that you've already seen. Hyatt was working on an XML schema for XUL at one point, but gave up before finishing it. The XUL programmer's reference manual <http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xulref/> seems to be more comprehensive, but I've never used it, so I don't know how useful it is. There are obviously other docs avaliable, from places like XULplanet.

Now that hyatt is no longer spending significant time on Mozilla, someone else needs to finish up stuff like the XUL spec and schema.

#32 Ian Hickson On The State of Mozilla XUL

by geraldb

Monday January 5th, 2004 4:29 PM

Reply to this message

Neil Deakin (of xulplanet.com fame) has collected some Ian Hickson quotes about XUL online @ <http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/article/211> Note, that even Neil Deakin believes the blatant lies Ian Hickson dishes out. Here we go:

We stopped working on the XUL spec itself when XUL Planet started documenting XUL in more detail than we had time to do ourselves.

Most of the current XUL work is being done within standards organisations with strict NDA policies. If you are a ISO, W3C, ECMA, or IETF member let me know and I can show you the relevant links... I'm under NDA from one of the above groups, in which XUL is being discussed.

XUL _is_ in active development, we are currently taking feedback into account and are more carefully defining the XUL box model.

#33 Ian Hickson On The State of Mozilla XUL Errata

by geraldb

Monday January 5th, 2004 4:31 PM

Reply to this message

> Note, that even Neil Deakin believes the blatant lies Ian Hickson dishes out. Sorry for the typos: It should read: Note that *not* even Neil Deakin believes the blatant lies Ian Hickson dishes out.

#34 Re: Ian Hickson On The State of Mozilla XUL

by bzbarsky

Monday January 5th, 2004 4:54 PM

Reply to this message

You know, I've never known Ian to lie. Never. In several years of knowing him.

So calling something he said "blatant lies" is a pretty strong accusation. Care to back it up?

Not to mention that I see nothing in that entry to indicate that Neil does not believe Ian. Quite the contrary.

Now would you please calm down and stop your own lying?

#36 Ian Hickson's Lies Exposed

by geraldb

Monday January 5th, 2004 5:39 PM

Reply to this message

> So calling something he said "blatant lies" is a pretty strong accusation. Care to back it up?

Sure. Let's work on Ian's first statement:

> We stopped working on the XUL spec itself when XUL Planet started documenting XUL in more detail > than we had time to do ourselves.

Don't you think anyone should have told Neal Deankin about his new responsibility? Why gently break the news three years after the fact in a newsgroup he doesn't read?

I also asked Ian why he won't finish up the XUL spec. His answer in a nutshell: I don't believe in XUL. I don't get paid for it why should I spend any time on it. In contrast Ian just spend several months to create a new Web Forms 2.0 spec that competes head-on with XForms 1.0 online @ <http://www.hixie.ch/specs/html/forms/web-forms> proving that he cleary knows how to write a spec.

#38 Re: He should be an example!

by ndeakin

Monday January 5th, 2004 8:45 PM

Reply to this message

> Don't you think anyone should have told Neal Deankin about his new responsibility? Why gently break the news three years after the fact in a > newsgroup he doesn't read?

It wasn't mentioned to me no. It may have been mentioned to XUL Planet though. mozilla.org did in fact contact XUL Planet about collaborating on XUL documentaion, however I was not involved much in such discussions. That was before the Foundation was created though, so priorities shifted.

/ Neil

#49 Re: Ian Hickson's Lies Exposed

by bzbarsky

Thursday January 8th, 2004 10:31 AM

Reply to this message

So where, in what you said, do you see a lie? I see a lack of communication with Neil, perhaps, but that is NOT the same as a lie.

#37 Re: He should be an example!

by ndeakin

Monday January 5th, 2004 8:43 PM

Reply to this message

> The Open XUL Alliance is the first initiative to help to promote cooperation and interopability as a first step to create a rich internet for everyone.

It is? The Open XUL Alliance web site makes no mention of this.

So you want it to be the w3c of XUL? It takes a lot of work and more credibility before people will consider that to be possible. A specification is really just a formal version of the documentation. Very few companies or groups actually create formal specs. Instead, specifications are usually made by recognized 'standards organizations', or groups of companies/organizations, when a need arises. If you'd like a specification made, you shouldn't be demanding one vendor such as the Mozilla Foundation to create it. You would need to create it yourself (probably years of work), or promote it to an existing group. The Ian Hickson quotes you link to suggest that might be in process. Indeed, a 'standard' XUL specification would be useful, although a lot of work, and would need to vary highly among different types of situations (such as small devices). I'm not sure why the Mozilla Foundation would want to invest all the work to create a XUL spec to allow other implementations of XUL to exist, thus dimishing the usefulness of Mozilla overall. This may be better for your ideal -- yet unattainable -- world where everyone works together to "create a rich internet for everyone", but this doesn't particularly benifit Mozilla.

/ Neil

#39 One Step After Another

by geraldb

Tuesday January 6th, 2004 7:24 AM

Reply to this message

Neil, thanks for you honest opinion.

> It is? The Open XUL Alliance web site makes no mention of this.

May I quote the XUL Alliance "mission statement" on the sourceforge project page online @ <http://sourceforge.net/projects/xul>

The XUL (XML User Interface Language) project provides free test suites to help ensure interoperability between different XUL motors/browsers and free, open-source show-case examples (aka blue prints) to demo the power of XML for creating UIs.

> If you'd like a specification made, you shouldn't be demanding one vendor such as the Mozilla Foundation to create it.

I do not demand that the Mozilla Foundation creates a XUL spec. All I ask for is that they stop pretending that the Mozilla XUL "spec" is an authoritative document when in fact it's just an abadoned draft (about 10% complete) that nobody cares about.

> You would need to create it yourself (probably years of work), or promote it to an existing group.

That's what the XUL Alliance is all about. If it takes years so be it. A first draft surely can get done in a couple of months.

> I'm not sure why the Mozilla Foundation would want to invest all the work to create a XUL spec to allow other implementations of > XUL to exist, thus dimishing the usefulness of Mozilla overall. This may be better for your ideal -- yet unattainable -- world where > everyone works together to "create a rich internet for everyone", but this doesn't particularly benifit Mozilla.

So how does Mozilla's attitude differ from Microsoft's? If you don't believe in cooperation, that's fine. But please stop proclaiming "creating a rich internet for everyone" is a pipe dream and unattainable. Again, isn't it ironic that the Mozilla Foundation states that their core mission is to maintain choice and innovation on the internet. What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites.

#41 Re: One Step After Another

by jgraham

Tuesday January 6th, 2004 1:57 PM

Reply to this message

>All I ask for is that they stop pretending that the Mozilla XUL "spec" is an authoritative document when in fact it's just an abadoned draft (about 10% complete) that nobody cares about.

Who claimed that? Incidentially, all anyone has asked of you is that you stop referring to things that are not XUL as XUL.

> So how does Mozilla's attitude differ from Microsoft's?

I suppose Neil can claim to speak for mozilla.org somewhat more than I can, but nevertheless, I'm pretty confident that the majority of people working on Mozilla wouldn't support the position that useful Mozilla-developed technology should be kept for Mozilla only. See <http://www.hixie.ch/specs/xbl/xbl> for example. But what you're doing is creating a massive amount of confusion by shoehorning lots of different things under a single name that describes precisely one of those things.

>What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites.

Sorry but, if you have an attitude like that, your "standards organisation" will fail.

#28 Why not practice what you preach

by geraldb

Monday January 5th, 2004 7:06 AM

Reply to this message

By the way, isn't it ironic that the Mozilla Foundation states that their core mission is to maintain choice and innovation on the internet. How can you maintain choice if you claim XUL all for yourself? Anyone?

#29 Re: Why not practice what you preach

by jgraham

Monday January 5th, 2004 7:41 AM

Reply to this message

Because XUL is not and was never intended to be a technology "for the internet". It is simply an implementation detail of Mozilla. Sure, having an XUL-like technology that is for the internet would be a good thing. However XUL itself is not intended to be that technology.

#35 I don't get it.

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Monday January 5th, 2004 5:32 PM

Reply to this message

It's not like this website is a public park or something; nobody's obliged to provide the trolls with means of expression. If somebody consistently abuses it, why don't mozine admins just kick them out? Cancel the account, ban the ip, etc. Nobody wants this to turn into another Slashdot, where the signal-to-noise ratio gets worse and worse all the time.

Granting headline space to this seems even stranger...

#40 Re: I don't get it.

by miken32

Tuesday January 6th, 2004 10:18 AM

Reply to this message

Because we also don't want to end up like /. where all non-conforming ideas are modded into oblivion. Just the slightest hint of pro-microsoft sentiment there will often get modded as flamebait or something equally silly. If we want a community, we need dissenting opinions.

#45 Re: Re: I don't get it.

by mlefevre

Wednesday January 7th, 2004 7:36 AM

Reply to this message

Well thanks for your dissenting opinion ;)

Dissenting opinions would be better off in the forums, or at least in the comments to the main page. The stuff in the articles is supposed to be "Mozilla news and advocacy". But this isn't a dissenting opinion anyway, it's a factually incorrect view from someone who and seems to enjoy inciting argument for the sake of it.

This article ain't news, and it ain't advocacy for Mozilla (unless you count the sarcastic comments in the article), it's just an incitement to a flame war - there's plenty of that in the forums, we don't need it on the front page as well.

#53 Re: Re: Re: I don't get it.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 8th, 2004 11:48 AM

Reply to this message

"Dissenting opinions would be better off in the forums, or at least in the comments to the main page. The stuff in the articles is supposed to be 'Mozilla news and advocacy'."

If somebody wants to disagree with the views stated in the stories, they are encouraged to do so here. The advocacy should be in the content of the articles and not necessarily the reader's posts.

Alex

#52 Re: I don't get it.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday January 8th, 2004 11:44 AM

Reply to this message

"It's not like this website is a public park or something; nobody's obliged to provide the trolls with means of expression. If somebody consistently abuses it, why don't mozine admins just kick them out? Cancel the account, ban the ip, etc."

I take it you are referring to geraldb. He's not a troll, he just happens to have a minority opinion. As long as he doesn't start throwing around gratituous insults, posting huge amounts of rubbish or doing something else that would seriously disrupt the discussion or offend people, he can keep his account.

Alex

#44 Hmmm

by raydirector

Wednesday January 7th, 2004 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, umm I don't wanna get involved in this debate, but I do have a question. Though somewhat unrelated I guess. Does anyone know if Mozilla has any plans to release a runtime (GRE/XRE whatever) for say if you just wanted to run MAB (Mozilla Amazon Browser) seperate from the main distro? Just curious.

#47 Nobody Home - Try the XUL Planet Forum

by geraldb

Wednesday January 7th, 2004 6:12 PM

Reply to this message

> Does anyone know if Mozilla has any plans to release a runtime (GRE/XRE whatever) for say if you just wanted to run MAB (Mozilla > Amazon Browser) seperate from the main distro? Just curious.

You might wonna try your luck in the XUL Planet forum online @ <http://www.xulplanet.com/forum>