[whatwg] Suggestion for a Specification: XUL Basic

[Brad Neuberg]

+1 on this proposal.  One thing; is it feasible to be able to support these 
tags in IE 6 with an emulation layer?

At 05:55 PM 6/9/2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>    I propose that the WHAT WG work on a specification for a subset of 
> Mozilla XUL that for the purposes of this message I will call XUL Basic. 
> XUL Basic will actually be the combination of two smaller XUL subsets 
> which I will refer to as "Keymaster" and "Gatekeeper".
>
>=== "KEYMASTER" ===
>
>    The first subset, "Keymaster", is designed for use in tandem with 
> XHTML. The idea is to create a subset that can be used in a mixed 
> XUL+XHTML environment to enhance existing XHTML web applications with 
> controls that don't exist in XHTML 1.0 itself.
>
>Here is the list of elements:
>
>    box
>    hbox
>    menu
>    menubar
>    menuitem
>    menupopup
>    menuseparator
>    tab
>    tabbox
>    tabpanel
>    tabpanels
>    tabs
>    vbox
>
>    "Keymaster" is intended for inclusion in browsers and other programs 
> that already support XHTML or another language with similar features. 
> This subset is compatible with the existing XUL motors Luxor XUL Toolkit 
> and Zulu:
>
>    http://luxor-xul.sourceforge.net/
>    http://zulu.netspedition.com/zulu/main/overview.shtml
>
>=== "GATEKEEPER" ===
>
>    The second subset, "Gatekeeper", is designed to provide basic support 
> for forms that are similar in features to those you can currently create 
> using HTML. This subset allows the creation of simple XUL-based web 
> applications contained in their own dialogs or windows.
>
>Here is the list of XUL elements:
>
>    button
>    checkbox
>    column
>    columns
>    description
>    dialog
>    hbox
>    image
>    label
>    menuitem
>    menulist
>    menupopup
>    radio
>    radiogroup
>    row
>    rows
>    separator
>    spacer
>    textbox
>    vbox
>    window
>
>    Nearly the entire "Gatekeeper" XUL subset is supported by Macromedia's 
> XML2UI (which I believe is part of Flash MX 2004. See the following page 
> for details:
>
>http://garland.duramedia.net/pipermail/extendflash_flashguru.co.uk/20040419/000734.html
>
>    XML2UI doesn't support description, image or window. We could 
> theoretically make this part of the specification optional, but I'm not 
> convinced that it's necessary. The element menupopup is supported in the 
> form "menupop". I don't see the point in changing the name of the tag to 
> save two characters, personally. Macromedia should be reasonably capable 
> of updating Flash MX 2004 to meet this potential specification.
>
>=== XUL BASIC ===
>
>    XUL Basic is the combining of the above two specifications. It allows 
> menus, tabs, dialogs and every type of control currently supported by 
> HTML, and it does it all with 32 tags. The two subset approach allows 
> developers to pick the subset that would be most advantageous to 
> implement, then go back and add the other subset when they have the resources.
>
>    XUL Basic is intended to be similar to XHTML Basic. It would serve as 
> a core standard for XUL support that would be relatively easy to approve 
> compared to a full specification of Mozilla XUL. Once approved, other 
> modules could be added to form a more complete specification of XUL.
>
>=== In Closing... ===
>
>    I'm not entirely sure this is in the scope of the WHAT WG's charter. 
> Let me know if this is not the case. I felt this idea was important 
> enough to present on this mailing list, so I went ahead and posted. If 
> there is a more appropriate venue for this message, please let me know. 
> Thoughts, comments and constructive criticism are welcome.