On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Matthew N. <ma...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Trees are the big thing that come to mind. I've heard about three non-XUL > re-implementations (IIRC mostly in devtools) which sounds like a > maintainability issue and potentially redundancy. I would rather keep using > XUL trees than have even more different tree implementations (though I'd be > fine with a one or two simpler replacements since many uses of a xul:tree > don't need a lot of the feature like nesting) which brings me to my next > point: > I'd lean in on your point there even more. Besides bookmarks which could have lots of nesting I imagine most other implementations of tree views are actually "doing it wrong" and could be using a simple list. Some time with UX might reveal a new way to display those things. It might be worth digging around to see how many trees really exist and if we could chop some of that down. What about XBL? Does it just work from XHTML documents? Is our > implementation of Web Components ready to replace it and riding the trains? > I think it would be good to implement drop-in replacements (or as close as > possible) for some simple XBL bindings or native XUL elements to prove that > Web Components are a replacement. Once the Web Component version is working > we can transition to it everywhere. Perhaps something like <preference> > would be a good candidate. > > Matthew > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Dave Townsend <dtowns...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > >> One of the things I've been investigating since moving back to the >> desktop team is how we can remove XUL from the application as much as >> possible. The benefits for doing this are varied, some obvious examples: >> >> * XUL is a proprietary standard and we barely maintain it. >> * Shallower learning curve for new contributors who may already know and >> use HTML. >> * HTML rendering is more optimized in the platform than XUL. >> * Further integration of Servo code may require dropping XUL altogether. >> >> The necessary first step of reducing XUL use is to stop adding any more >> UI that uses XUL and here I'm talking about wholly new UI, additions to >> browser.xul and other existing UI are a separate concern. What do folks >> think about making this a rule for new projects in the near future? >> >> Of course there are some features missing from HTML that make this >> impossible in some cases right now. Some that I've already found: >> >> * HTML has no support for popup panels like XUL does. The devtools team >> have been working around this but they are still dependent on XUL right now. >> * iframe elements don't have the same capabilities that the XUL browser >> element does and we use that in some UI. >> * Top level menus on OSX are currently only able to be defined with XUL >> elements. This only affects UI that uses top-level windows and most of our >> new UI is in-content so may be less of an issue. >> >> What other features do we depend on in XUL that I haven't listed? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> firefox-dev mailing list >> firefox-...@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > firefox-dev mailing list > firefox-...@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
