[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0

• To: mbatsis@n...
• Subject: Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:33:55 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3EE460FF.1090001@n...>
• Organization: Expway
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648445E@R...> <3EE460FF.1090001@n...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
> Flamewars and name hijacking aside, XUL has some very interesting 
> features that leave XHTML behind, namely the set of reusable widjets and 
> advanced box model.

That's a statemenent ("leave XHTML behind") that would need more qualification. 
XHTML wasn't designed for applications, it was designed for documents.

> But the best part is about extensibility via XBL. Something like DHTML 
> behaviors but far more efficient, offering creation of custom elements, 
> events, etc. Actually, most widjects are implemented in this way.

Please see: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/#rax . It's an early WD description. Imho 
it's the way forward.

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway        http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
    • From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@n...>

• References:
  • RE: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
    • From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XUL Alliance - Creating A Rich Internet For Everyone
• Next by Date: RE: CSS syntax for RDF
• Previous by thread: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread