HTML vs. XUL

Justin Wood (Callek) callek at gmail.com
Wed Apr 6 02:19:49 UTC 2011


On 4/5/2011 6:42 PM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> On 05/04/11 14:47, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> HTML just isn't made for app development, XUL is, and it shows, big 
>> time.
>
> Going back to that quoted line, I guess one way to express it would be 
> "go try to build a XUL-shim over HTML, and see where it fails, 
> there'll be tons of problems".

My one comment, XUL is not the end-all solution, and writing an XUL shim 
is bound to fail as well; since it has its own edge-cases and oddities 
that one wouldn't expect. And to try and mimic those oddities in HTML 
might be hard/impossible in some cases. Without those differences 
actually being helpful in many cases, just unfortunately meaning that if 
someone takes advantage/uses one of those differences in his/her XUL 
app, that it could break if that behavior changes.

The idea would be to write an app in HTML and see where you have 
problems. Probably my largest issue with HTML vs. XUL atm is lack of any 
coherent <tree> support. (Though in all honesty, the XUL model isn't 
perfect, but far better than what HTML has; and it works well).

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)



More information about the tb-planning mailing list