<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/21/2016 3:43 PM, Magnus Melin
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi"><mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:3352f5af-8aeb-9c80-7bc9-dac890d71f8a@iki.fi"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p>Like aleth wrote, there have been no announcements about
removing XUL/XBL. XUL is deprecated, meaning Mozilla will not
put any effort on moving if forwards (patches NOT accepted!).
XUL in add-ons is going away for Firefox Add-ons, but will live
on in Firefox/Thunderbird core for who knows how long. Removal
is only a long term goal, so I would not be surprised if it's
still used 10 years from now, but these things are hard to
predict. <br>
</p>
<p>XPCOM is not deprecated, and the implications would be massive.
It would happen way in the future if ever.</p>
<p>So, removal is not imminent but that doesn't mean there aren't
a lot of rewriting into web technologies that should happen as
soon as possible, since that is not such a moving target, pool
of contributors is potentially huge and there would eventually
be a possibility of a version for mobile.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, so it sounds like things aren't quite as dire (Thunderbird will
be dead in a year!) as I was thinking from the comments surrounding
the deprecation of XUL/XBL.<br>
<br>
And I'm glad to hear that XPCOM has not been slated for deprecation,
let alone removal. I could have sworn I saw someone say that it was.<br>
<br>
Thanks for clarifying things, Magnus.<br>
</body>
</html>