4 ms·
Source? Last I heard from Moz, XUL was considered a maintenance burden that increasingly suffers from neglect. HTML now does a comparable job, is standardised,
by ChrisSD 9y ago
Source? Last I heard from Moz, XUL was considered a maintenance burden that increasingly suffers from neglect. HTML now does a comparable job, is standardised, is widely used and needs to be implemented anyway.
Maintaining two interface languages doesn't make much sense in the long term.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 482794793792894 9y agoThe XUL/XPCOM extension API is a massive maintenance burden. The XUL UI toolkit is something different and while it's not either magically free of maintenance cost, it's much less of a maintenance burden than the XUL/XPCOM extension API.
- chr1 9y agoXUL is the same XUL both in extensions and in browser ui. XPCOM is another independent technology https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM. They are disabling the direct access from extensions to apis used by browser itself (that is access to XUL _and_ XPCOM), to be able to modify the browser ui without worrying about breaking extensions, with the goal to remove XUL eventually.
- mintplant 9y agoThis is correct. Or, at least, people would like to remove XUL eventually: the tractability of that is still a topic of research.