3: <title>XPFE vs. DHTML</title>
5: <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
7: <font size="+1"><b>XPFE vs. DHTML</b></font>
9: <p>'In the beginning, there were 3 front ends: Mac, Windows and Unix. Each took a suite of developers to maintain. Adding a new feature (even just a
10: button) required 3 engineers to waste at least a day (more often a week) slaving away until the feature was complete. This had to change.'
12: <p>This is an explanation quote is posted on mozilla.org and describesing how the Netscape 4.x browsers required a different set of engineers to create
13: and maintain the code for the user interface code, even though the browser looked nearly identical on each different platform. version looked nearly
16: <p>For a company n organization committed to creating an application that runs on a wide range of different systems platforms, this system of using
17: platform specific code was a huge investment and a big waste of time. XPFE, Mozilla's cross-platform front end, was designed to solve this problem byso
18: that enabling engineers would be able to create one interface that would then work on any all operating systems.
20: <p>This new technology started out as a time-saving technique and turned into one of Mozilla's most powerful innovations. When they started work on
21: creating XPFE, Mozilla engineers were trying to create a more efficient process that would save them time and effort when they started work on XPFE, but
22: this technology ended up having the unintended consequence of lowering the barriers to entry for application developers.
24: <p>Mike Cornall, in an article about Mozilla published on LinuxToday, summarizes the history of XPFE well when he says: 'The application platform
25: capabilities of Mozilla came about through a happy coincidence of Open Source development, good design, and far-sighted developers who were paying
30: <p>'In the beginning, there were 3 front ends: Mac, Windows and Unix. Each took a suite of developers to maintain. Adding a new feature (even just a
31: button) required 3 engineers to waste at least a day (more often a week) slaving away until the feature was complete. This had to change.' This is an <a
32: href="http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/ElevatorTouchyFeely.html">explanation posted</a> on mozilla.org describing how the Netscape 4.x browsers required a
33: different set of engineers to create and maintain the interface code for Netscape on each different platform, even though each version looked nearly
36: <p>For an organization committed to creating an application that runs on a range of <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/ports/">different platforms</a> this
37: system of using platform specific code was a huge investment and a big waste of time. XPFE, Mozilla's cross-platform front end, was designed to fix this
38: by allowing engineers to be able to create one interface that would then work on any operating system. This new technology started out as a time-saving
39: technique and then turned into one of Mozilla's most powerful innovations.
41: <p>Mozilla engineers were trying to create a more efficient process that would save them time and effort when they started work on XPFE, but this
42: technology ended up having the unintended consequence of lowering the barriers to entry for application developers. Mike Cornall, in <a
43: href="http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-07-25-001-07-OP-SM-0036">an article</a> about Mozilla published on LinuxToday, summarizes the
44: history of XPFE well when he says: 'The application platform capabilities of Mozilla came about through a happy coincidence of Open Source development,
45: good design, and far-sighted developers who were paying attention.'
47: <p>All browsers allow people using any type of computer to access applications on the Web, such as Yahoo! Mail, Amazon and Ebay. Mozilla is simply
48: building on this idea. Using new technologies in conjunction with existing Web standards Mozilla enables the creation of more powerful applications, so
49: instead of using Opera, Netscape 4.x or Internet Explorer to access a Web page you can use a full-featured application with Mozilla.
51: <p><b>Understanding XPFE</b>
54: language called XUL, the XML-based User Interface Language). Since well understood Web standards are being used to create applications instead of
55: platform-specific C code, a whole new group of people now have the ability to create their own applications using Mozilla.
57: <p>In the sense that XPFE uses some of the same standards that are used to create Web pages, Mozilla-based applications can even be thought of as Web
58: pages. Gecko, the HTML rendering engine that Mozilla uses, also draws all XPFE content, so a Web page and an application created with XPFE are on one
59: level treated the same way by Mozilla itself.
61: <p>Web developers and designers who use Mozilla are naturally attracted to the fact that they can create applications using the same skills and
62: techniques that they used to create Web pages in the past. The specifics involved with creating Mozilla applications are different but should seem very
63: familiar to anyone who has created for the Web before.
65: <p>When talking about front ends it is important to clarify what this means. In this context a front end is more than the look and feel of a
66: Mozilla-based application, but includes the functionality and structure of that application as well. More simply put, XPFE allows users to do more than
67: just create a skin for an application. For example, Netscape 6 does use this functionality to allow for the creation of <a
68: href="http://www.netscape.com/themes/">different themes</a> for their browser suite, but the browser suite itself is also created out of these same
72: <p><img src="http://books.mozdev.org/screenshots/moz_0101.gif"><br>
73: <font size="-1"><i>Figure 1: XPFE Framework</i></font>
77: functionality for a Mozilla-based application, Cascading Style Sheets are used for formatting the look and feel, and XUL is used for creating the
78: application's structure. Viewed together these three standards can be seen forming the triangle in Figure 1 above.
80: <p><b>Comparing XPFE and DHTML</b>
83: and CSS that allows a developer to create a Web application that is contained within the content area of a browser. XPFE provides a logical evolution to
84: this idea by allowing the creation of applications that are more powerful, more flexible and that can live outside of the browser window as stand-alone
88: and layout, and both use a fairly simple mark-up language to describe content. The difference between the two is that one of these mark-up languages is
89: HTML and the other is XUL.
92: <p><img src="http://books.mozdev.org/screenshots/moz_0102.gif"><br>
93: <font size="-1"><i>Figure 2: Comparison of DHTML and XPFE</i></font>
96: <p>Although HTML has been put to many different uses, it was <a href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#historical">originally designed</a> as a simple system to
97: link together separate text documents on the Internet. Later additions to the HTML standard have extended its functionality, but even these enhancements
98: can't make it an appropriate language to use for developing applications. XUL is a language specifically designed for creating user interfaces, so it
99: makes sense that XPFE is more suited for application development than DHTML.
101: <p>Fortunately since XUL as a language is structurally similar to HTML it is simple enough to learn if you are already familiar with the basic language
102: of the Web. Even if you have never used HTML before, XUL uses a straight-forward <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xulref/">collection of tags</a>
103: that makes it easy to get comfortable with it in a short time. Once you become accustomed to using XUL you will be ready to start using XPFE to create
104: your own applications.
106: <p><b>Oversimplifying in the Metaphor</b>
108: <p>This overview of XPFE as a simple evolution of DHTML is an oversimplification of the story and deliberately leaves out much important information.
109: These details were ignored at first to give a conceptual framework for understanding the new ideas that XPFE represent. Now that we've gotten past the
110: basics, we can go back and talk about the rest of the functionality available with using Mozilla to create applications.
112: <p>At the <a href="http://meetzilla.mozdev.org/second_meeting.html">Second Mozilla Developer Meeting</a>, Rob Ginda, the creator of ChatZilla, lead a
113: discussion group about Mozilla as Platform. In this session he listed all of the following as components of a Mozilla-based application:
115: <FONT COLOR="#800000">
117: <LI>XUL (XML-based User Interface Language) - Used to create the structure and content of an application.<br><br>
118: <LI>CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) - Used to create the look and feel of an application.<br><br>
120: <LI>XPInstall (Cross-Platform Install) - Used to package applications so that they can be installed on any platform.<br><br>
121: <LI>RDF (Resource Description Framework) - Used to store data and transmit information. Generally regarded to be one of the most complicated aspects of XPFE.<br><br>
122: <LI>DTD (Document Type Definition) - Used for localization and internationalization, more commonly referred to in short-hand as L12N and I18N respectively.<br><br>
124: <LI>XUL templates - Used to create a framework for importing data into an application with a combination of RDF and XUL.<br><br>
129: <p>Each of these technologies is important and several of these deserve to have whole books devoted to them. Although each of these technologies is
130: important there is a distinction to be made among them. Some of these are essential to the creation of a Mozilla application and some of them provide
131: powerful extra features that can be used in addition to the basic functionality.
133: <p>For example, <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/">RDF</a> is an extremely powerful technology for using data in Mozilla but it is possible to
134: create an application without using it. <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/l10n/mlp.html">Localization</a> also provides Mozilla with a great
135: amount of flexibility and usability but there are many existing applications that don't take advantage of this feature. It wouldn't be possible to
136: create an application without XUL though.
138: <p><b>Judge For Yourself</b>
140: <p>XPFE is a new technology that has yet to prove itself to the Web community and many people are skeptical about the need for an application framework
141: such as this. Before you make up your mind about XPFE, you should take a look at the many different applications that have already been created using
142: Mozilla so you can judge for yourself.
144: <p>If you are interested in trying out some of these, there are currently over 40 different Mozilla-based applications being hosted on <a
145: href="http://www.mozdev.org/projects.html">mozdev.org</a> that have been created using XPFE. Other applications using the same technology include
146: ActiveState's <a href="http://www.activestate.com/ASPN/Downloads/Komodo/More">Komodo</a> IDE, Rob Ginda's <a
147: href="http://www.hacksrus.com/~ginda/chatzilla/">ChatZilla</a> IRC client, and Zope's <a href="http://www.zope.org/Resources/Mozilla/">Mozilla