Re: Awesome new Mozilla roadmap!

[John Palmieri <johnp martianrock com>]

On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 08:30, Chipzz wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Sander Vesik wrote:
> 
> > gtk(mm)? There isn't really a reason for mozilla dropping xul
> 
> It's slow, doesn't share any code at all with the other software on my
> ssytem, as such doesn't integrate AT ALL with the rest of my system, or
> with ANY system at all for that matter, (and yes I've tried using the
> GTK+ look, it didn't work), GTK+ can do all the things it can and is
> just as cross-platofrm as XUL (except maybe for the MAC, but people are
> allready porting GTK+ 1.2 to it, and I figure porting GDK to the mac
> wouldn't be a huge problem).
There are a lot more issues involved than just a widget set.  JavaScript
bindings is one of them.  Why refactor Mozilla when you can embed it in
a native widget browser like Galeon?

> Can you name one application except mozilla that uses XUL and is fre-
> quently used? By more than a dozen users that is. And can you name one
> such app outside the mozilla project?
Komodo from Active State.  It is a cross platform IDE.

> And what about accessibility?
I'm pretty sure it is accessable but I could be wrong here.

> Personnally, I can see a lot of good reasons why NOT to use XUL. (Thou I
> must admit that I haven't used it to program yet).
GTK is not an internet based wiget set though the Sash project has
worked to that end.  XUL is basicly a cousin to HTML.  It is a more
natural browser language.  You can create your own XUL apps within a
webpage. Mozilla is not a Gnome app.  Its scope is much bigger.  Because
of that we have Galeon and Epiphany which are Gtk native browsers which
use Mozilla technology.  Use them if you think Mozilla is slow.  

--
J5