Re: WHAT WG Spotlight: How about a XUL Basic spec?

Hi,

XUL Basic sounds really cool. Can't WHAT just forget about the html 
thing? I don't require to run my web apps in IE 5, Opera 5 or Netscape 4 
and who wants html in 2 years from now? If Mozilla/Opera//Safari/FlashMX 
would all support such XUL Basic that would open an entirely new world, 
somehow it should probably be possible to get that also to run in IE.

karl

Gerald Bauer wrote:

>Hello,
>
>  Matthew Raymond has kicked off a discussion at the
>new WHAT WG mailinglist titled "Suggestion for a
>Specification: XUL Basic".
>
>  Matthew writes:
>
>  I propose that the WHAT WG work on a specification
>for a subset of Mozilla XUL that for the purposes of
>this message I will call XUL Basic. XUL Basic will
>actually be the combination of two smaller XUL subsets
>which I will refer to as "Keymaster" and "Gatekeeper".
>
>=== "KEYMASTER" ===
>
>    The first subset, "Keymaster", is designed for use
>in tandem with XHTML. The idea is to create a subset
>that can be used in a mixed XUL+XHTML environment to
>enhance existing XHTML web applications with controls
>that don't exist in XHTML 1.0 itself.
>
>  Here is the list of elements:
>
>    box
>    hbox
>    menu
>    menubar
>    menuitem
>    menupopup
>    menuseparator
>    tab
>    tabbox
>    tabpanel
>    tabpanels
>    tabs
>    vbox
>
>    "Keymaster" is intended for inclusion in browsers
>and other programs that already support XHTML or
>another language with similar features. This subset is
>compatible with the existing XUL motors Luxor XUL
>Toolkit and Zulu:
>
>    http://luxor-xul.sourceforge.net/
>   
>http://zulu.netspedition.com/zulu/main/overview.shtml
>
>=== "GATEKEEPER" ===
>
>    The second subset, "Gatekeeper", is designed to
>provide basic support for forms that are similar in
>features to those you can currently create using HTML.
>This subset allows the creation of simple XUL-based
>web applications contained in their own dialogs or
>windows.
>
>Here is the list of XUL elements:
>
>    button
>    checkbox
>    column
>    columns
>    description
>    dialog
>    hbox
>    image
>    label
>    menuitem
>    menulist
>    menupopup
>    radio
>    radiogroup
>    row
>    rows
>    separator
>    spacer
>    textbox
>    vbox
>    window
>
>    Nearly the entire "Gatekeeper" XUL subset is
>supported by Macromedia's XML2UI (which I believe is
>part of Flash MX 2004. See the following page for
>details:
>
>http://garland.duramedia.net/pipermail/extendflash_flashguru.co.uk/20040419/000734.html
>
>    XML2UI doesn't support description, image or
>window. We could theoretically make this part of the
>specification optional, but I'm not convinced that
>it's necessary. The element menupopup is supported in
>the form "menupop". I don't see the point in changing
>the name of the tag to save two characters,
>personally. Macromedia should be reasonably capable of
>updating Flash MX 2004 to meet this potential
>specification.
>
>=== XUL BASIC ===
>
>    XUL Basic is the combining of the above two
>specifications. It allows menus, tabs, dialogs and
>every type of control currently supported by HTML, and
>it does it all with 32 tags. The two subset approach
>allows developers to pick the subset that would be
>most advantageous to implement, then go back and add
>the other subset when they have the resources.
>
>    XUL Basic is intended to be similar to XHTML
>Basic. It would serve as a core standard for XUL
>support that would be relatively easy to approve
>compared to a full specification of Mozilla XUL. Once
>approved, other modules could be added to form a more
>complete specification of XUL.
>
>=== In Closing... ===
>
>    I'm not entirely sure this is in the scope of the
>WHAT WG's charter. Let me know if this is not the
>case. I felt this idea was important enough to present
>on this mailing list, so I went ahead and posted. If
>there is a more appropriate venue for this message,
>please let me know. Thoughts, comments and
>constructive criticism are welcome.
>  
>  Source:
>http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-June/000111.html
>
>  What's your take on it? Any comments? Any thoughts?
>
>  - Gerald
>
>-------------------
>Gerald Bauer
>Open XUL Alliance - A Rich Internet For Everyone |
>http://xul.sourceforge.net  
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X.
>>From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the
>one installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and
>evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504
>_______________________________________________
>xul-talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
>
>
>  
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X.
From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the
one installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and
evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504