Re: Re: several messages about WHATWG and XUL

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 18:54 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Great -- start up a new body to standardise it (since the "XUL alliance"
> has failed to get any standardisation done in its years of existence) and
> go with it.
> ...
> WHATWG has no official status. It claims even less of an official
> status than, say, the laughable "XUL alliance".

AFAIK the "XUL Alliance" has never attempted or pretended to introduce
standards, but rather be a forum for XUL-like technologies.

Your petty attempts to mock it come across as immature.  Please refrain,
I'm sure nobody wants to hear it or another moaning match between
yourself and Gerald.

> You are just as able to create other working groups with similar goals
> but different basic principles if you think you can do a better job.

It's not about doing a "better job".  I'm just uncertain of what WHATNG
intends to solve and have little hope that another HTML standard will be
taken up within a reasonable time frame.

I do however agree with your approach that a backwards-compatable
solution might be more successful than say Mozilla XUL which relies on
the person using Mozilla applications.  The difficulty will be in
getting more than a minority of the market to use "HTML NG" browers
before you or I are ready to retire. ;)

Also, WHATNG comes across somewhat as one of those standards Marc
Clifton was complaining about.  It seems almost like a reaction to the
thread of XAML, to try to improve HTML before XAML can wedge itself in
as the pretender to the throne.

Still, for some reason, I do hope WHATNG succeed.
-- 
- Charlie

Charles Goodwin <[email protected]>
Online @ www.charlietech.com



-------------------------------------------------------
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