• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@n...>
• Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:27:11 +0300
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648445E@R...>
• Organization: Netsmart S.A., Greece
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648445E@R...>
• Reply-to: mbatsis@n...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4)Gecko/20030529

Flamewars and name hijacking aside, XUL has some very interesting 
features that leave XHTML behind, namely the set of reusable widjets and 
advanced box model.

But the best part is about extensibility via XBL. Something like DHTML 
behaviors but far more efficient, offering creation of custom elements, 
events, etc. Actually, most widjects are implemented in this way.

In short, XUL is most of what I expected from XHTML 2.0 minus XForms and 
m12n...

Manos

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
    • From: Gerald Bauer <luxorxul@y...>

• References:
  • RE: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Architectural form-like validation with schemas?
• Next by Date: Re: YAML Ain't Markup Language
• Previous by thread: RE: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• Next by thread: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread