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.


#46 Re:XUL is a waste of time

by HoserHead <hoserhead@woot.net>

Tuesday May 25th, 1999 8:45 PM

You are replying to this message

To anyone who pooh-poohs XUL and non-proprietary front-ends to Mozilla:

1) Originally, the FE to Communicator was proprietary. It's been said that just to add ONE BUTTON to, say, the preferences dialogue, that it would take an engineer one full day, for each platform (Unix, Mac, Windows). Now? About 15 minutes, giving time for look&feel and tweaking, probably less.

2) Why would a customisable UI not 'fly' with the Windows users? It seems to me it flys really well with Winamp, which has skins all the same as Mozilla has interfaces.

3) If Mozilla shipped with a UI pretty much the same as Communicator's, except defined as XUL, why would anyone care? Would Win32-heads look at the interface, scream "AAUGH! It's defined in XUL!" and not use it, if it acted and looked the same? I think not.

4) As has been pointed out to you, and you've accepted this, the benefits of XUL far outweigh the costs. Mozilla isn't optimised, debugged, and all-over isn't ready for prime time use yet; when it is, you can rest assured that speed of the toolbars, interface, etc, will be just as fast as you want it.

Really, I don't see what you've got against XUL. There's no reason whatsoever for it not to be as successful as the Communicator 4/IE interface, especially if the UI guys at Netscape and out in the community do some good work on the default UI that ships with Mozilla. Being against having the option of customising it is just as irrational as not driving a car because it's possible to kill someone, or cutting your meat with a spoon because knives have been known to hurt people. XUL is the way Mozilla is going, like it or not, so I suggest that if you *don't* like the way the UI looks, that you make your own - after all, that's kind of the point.