MozillaZine

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.


#228 Re: MozillaZine's ChromeZone Now Open!

by Mike S. <mikes@mac-addict.com>

Saturday May 29th, 1999 11:39 PM

You are replying to this message

I'm out of my league here so pardon me if this makes no sense. So that I may increase my knowedge I'd appreciate it if you could point out my mistakes.

With that said:

I don't see why supporitng XUL would force you to design 2 versions of a site.

You design a site using standards. Mozilla supports standards and you'd expect everyone else to as well since that is the very definition of a standard.

Should you decide to create a custom interface in support of XUL than it's just an added bonus for Mozilla users. I don't see how not using XUL would cause any difficulties as Mozilla would use whatever chrome is being used and operate as any normal browser would.

It seems that you'd be going out of your way to design a custom site for browsers like IE which don't support standards. In doing so the site would look wrong in the browser that supports standards.

Until everyone supports the standards, or settles on one browser, you'll be doing extra work anyways. How much depends on how many non standard features you choose to support.

A work around would be something similar to what the Mac browser iCab does. It claims to be standards compliant. There is an option to disrespect standards so that sites that take advantage of non-standard tags render as they were intended.

Perhaps the browser could automaticly toggle to the correct rendering model depending on the HTML being used?

I think I may have just realized your point, designing a XUL based interface would make the browser act like an app running off of a server with custom button and menus rather than using a traditional web based frontend. This would indeed force two sites. Is this correct?