Comments on unmaintained products and technogies (bug 441414 #2)

Joshua Cranmer pidgeot18 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 28 14:58:46 UTC 2014


On 12/28/2014 8:44 AM, ace wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Comments on unmaintained products and technogies (bug
> 441414 #2)
> From: Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18 at gmail.com>
> To: tb-planning at mozilla.org
> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 08:36:11 -0600
>
>> On 12/27/2014 5:13 PM, ace wrote:
>>> I have personally not seen any official announcements or reasons why XUL
>>> would be deprecated already.
>> Because it's not The Open Web. And, to a lesser degree, it's Thunderbird
>> who needs this feature, not Firefox. If Firefox needed a multiline tree
>> view, it would be implemented before the end of the next quarter. The
>> belief is that HTML is now sufficient to replace XUL--but I'm not sure
>> that is the case, especially since our web components implementation is
>> still very incomplete.
> So why do they not rewrite XUL in pure HTML? Do they now want to
> open-code all widgets in HTML at all call sites? If not, and there is
> again some shared library coding all the widgets, then I think it is XUL
> again, just with the backend changed.

I have heard (but cannot personally attest) that the XUL display model 
is fundamentally incompatible with regular HTML/CSS display, and this 
makes mixing XUL and HTML difficult. I have also heard that now that 
flexbox is implemented, it may be worth fixing this incompatibility by 
switching the XUL box model to flexbox, under the belief that it ought 
to be sufficient for most uses.

-- 
Joshua Cranmer
News submodule owner
DXR coauthor




More information about the tb-planning mailing list