MozillaZine's ChromeZone Now Open!
Monday May 24th, 1999
Steve Morrison, creator of the XULTool, has joined MozillaZine (as some of you may already know). He has been hard at work getting the XULTool working on our site, and we're pleased to announce that the ChromeZone is now online.
Now, with a simple form, you can change the look and feel of Mozilla, and create your own themes! You can also choose from some ready-made themes we have available. You can also send your own themes to ChromeZone for addition to our site.
So, fire up apprunner and head over to the chromeZone.
We got a lot of great entries for our little "name our new chrome area" contest, but in our final vote, "ChromeZone" came out on top. A number of people submitted the name "ChromeZone" or a variation for our contest. Clayton Scott was the first, however, and his prize is a stuffed Mozilla doll from Netscape. I know we didn't promise any prizes for the contest, but we wanted to give something to the winner.
Thanks to everyone for you contributions, and if you have any suggestions for the chromeZone, let us know.
#224 Re:MozillaZine's ChromeZone Now Open!
Saturday May 29th, 1999 10:33 PM
You are replying to this message
And I don't think you get the purpose of XUL, or the uses we're describing. You state: "If I go to some website, and they use downloadable chrome as part of the web site's 'application', how will I support IE users, WebTV, handheld units, Opera, Konqueror and every other browser."
By "web application", we're not talking about something that you get when you visit a website. We're not talking about ecommerce websites. We're talking about the kinds of applications that are utilized in backend services. For example, applications that access databases and administer a website. These applications aren't used by a website visitor, they're used by administrators. And, as I stated, altering an administration application to make it XUL compatible (while at the same time allowing it to work in a standard browser format) is a trivial feat. And it doesn't in any way affect what visitors to a website see.
The XUL use that will be popular among consumers is of a different sort - it will (almost certainly) only be visual differences to their user interface (possibly with buttons added to lead to specific parts of a company's website (as we did with our mozillaZine skin). It certainly wouldn't be used in e-commerce situations or other web-applications. Even if it was, it would only be an adjunct to a standard-browser service, not a replacement.
XUL in no way affects the way you develop websites for the public. Web standards compliance should be your concern.
"You people are presupposing that somehow, Gecko 'wins' and has monopolized the market. That people are shipping HTML applications around on CD-ROMs using Gecko."
No such thing. XUL will be useful in web application development, like remote database access and such. Applications in which most of the data is passed via HTML and XML to a browser window. For interaction with an adminstrator (or a customer service agent, for example).
"The acid test is if a XUL file loaded into a XML/CSS/DOM/EcmaScript enabled browser will produce 'chrome' on a non-Gecko platform that looks and feels the same. The fact is, it won't."
No, it's not, for the reasons I stated above. XUL is not something that will affect the usage of websites. And, let's face it, the true thing that will be affecting website development is standards compliance, and in that way, Mozilla will not be to blame after the release of v1.
It seems that you're conflating various purposes of XUL, and assuming a usage for it that will not occur, because, as you said, that kind of usage will not be supported by companies like Microsoft, and will not become standardized. However, when used as I mentioned above, it allows web application developers to create administration tools that work in standard browsers and at the same time take advantage of XUL functionality to bring value-added features to Mozilla users.