«« Herd Behaviour Google is Suboptimal »»
blog header image
There Are Only Two XULs

Some interesting things being discussed in light of a recent chat comment by a Microsoft employee about the discontinuation of IE as a standalone application post-Longhorn.

This makes sense though. If you read this blog, you know I think that browser development has plateaued. So where to go next? Deeply integrate the browser into the OS GUI -- so deep it uses the same renderer as traditional WinForms (which will probably be pumped through Direct X and hardware accelerated like Mac OS X -- need those flying and fluttering windows, yaknow). That is what I think Microsoft will do.

Take a look at what the Mozilla-as-a-platform offers and imagine an OS like that. Mozilla can render itself -- enter chrome://navigator/content/ in the Mozilla address bar to see. So not only can Mozilla render web pages it also renders applications using a markup language named XUL (pronounced ZOOL).

So Microsoft will make their own flavour of XUL -- but they will probably one-up Mozilla by allowing DHTML in their XUL and XUL in their DHTML, enabling a hybrid of WinForms and WebForms. Picture web pages that have custom menus and status bars and stand-alone applications with DHTML in them for free (no Internet Explorer in a COM object necessary). It will all be XML and the renderer will sort it out.

The .NET WinForm editing in VS.NET is already just a bunch of nested elements with properties. How long would it take to convert that to a XUL-like language? XML might be harder to read than a property editor but it's easier to see the nesting to layout things properly -- which is why I like XUL so much.

.NET has support for JScript.NET as well, which is a lot like the JavaScript the Mozilla project uses to call lower level C++ modules from the GUI through XPCOM. With .NET you wouldn't need the COM mess ... your lower-level application code in C# could be called directly with JScript.NET. Nice.

So I see the lines between "application" and web page blurring. Microsoft is spending two years developing Longhorn so it will take even longer for the open source community to catch up, a nice side benefit (see .NET and Mono). Should be interesting to see what they come up with. I guess we'll find out at the PDC ... it's fun to predict though. :)

Posted at June 12, 2003 at 02:40 PM EST
Last updated June 12, 2003 at 02:40 PM EST
Comments

It manages to render itself but it's dead slow...at least the Firebird. There are also some issues with IE when it's inside itself, but you can destroy your weekend at high speed.

» Posted by: Gormy at June 12, 2003 05:30 PM

Does anyone know what this guy is talking about? :)

» Posted by: Ryan at June 13, 2003 03:35 PM

no.

But I think you are right on... web services is such a great concept - but serving things up as a webpage is such a waste. The interface is everything - so regardless how smart the underlying application is - it is only seen as a webpage - whereas we should be thinking webapp.

I like the idea of going to www.pcfinancial.ca and seeing a real gui - one that need not 'refresh' itself, but rather just communicates to the smarter being somewhere else (ala web services)

» Posted by: andrew at June 14, 2003 12:49 PM

I guess this prediction was too crazy -- no one agrees except andrew. ;)

» Posted by: Ryan at June 16, 2003 09:56 AM

actually Mozilla allows xhtml with xul (xhtml+dom+js=dhtml) so what you are asking for works already. I'm not sure about xul in xhtml, it should work, though there might be bugs...

» Posted by: basic at June 19, 2003 11:28 PM

Basic: yep, I assumed that Thunderbird (the mail client) used that functionality to display HTML mail. It's the reverse situation that is more interesting. It would allow so-called "distributed apps" to look like real applications instead of web pages. That would enable developers to create better pay-per-use software.

» Posted by: Ryan at June 20, 2003 08:47 PM
Google
 
Search scope: Web ryanlowe.ca