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.

#39 One Step After Another

by geraldb

Tuesday January 6th, 2004 7:24 AM

You are replying 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 @ <>

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.