Talk:XULRunner: Difference between revisions
(XUL is more or less outdated) |
m (Talk:Xulrunner moved to Talk:XULRunner: correct capitalization) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
the native widgets like XUL does which might need more |
the native widgets like XUL does which might need more |
||
resources. --[[User:Marc van Woerkom|Marc van Woerkom]] 21:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT) |
resources. --[[User:Marc van Woerkom|Marc van Woerkom]] 21:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT) |
||
== With this browser does use of Webkinz work well? == |
|||
Please include in replies/comments considerations of the physical screen size and anything else involved. |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:21, 20 August 2008
What is being done to resolve the xulrunner vs. geckoembed conflict?
Since the OLPC has two HTML renderers, xulrunner supporting Javascript and geckoembed not supporting Javascript, what will be done to resolve this conflict?
- geckoembed is gone. MitchellNCharity 16:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
XUL is more or less outdated
I wouldn't use XUL anymore, as it locks me into the Mozilla platform.
A modern framework like qooxdoo allows traditional GUI development running on a multitude of browsers instead of just one, making XUL rather obsolete.
However I can't estimate the resource constraints on the OLPC platform, a pure JavaScript approach like qooxdoo must obviously render all widgets itself instead of relying on the native widgets like XUL does which might need more resources. --Marc van Woerkom 21:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
With this browser does use of Webkinz work well?
Please include in replies/comments considerations of the physical screen size and anything else involved.