Do all "non-XUL" Gecko browsers render XUL?

I don't now why this didn't occur to me earlier:

I had been a little disappointed by the "non-XUL" Gecko browsers, such as Galean, Kmeleon, Chimera, etc... because I figured these browsers wouldn't render XUL. I thought it was a short-sighted way to spoil the promise of XUL.

But, I just downloaded the latest version of Kmeleon, and tested it one some XUL samples, and lo and behold it worked!

The only inconsistency I found is that some of the window sizing features are not followed completely, but hey, it's based on the Mozilla 1.2 beta, so there is still hope to fix it.

So, it looks to me like XUL rendering is embedded in the Gecko engine and any Gecko-based browser will run XUL. I ask anyone else who has played with other Gecko-based browsers, such as Galeon and Chimera: do you have any trouble running XUL components? (try the main tutorial at www.xulplanet.com)

I wonder how much work it would be to ship a "minimal" Gecko renderer, simply to run your XUL program, without any external menu components, bookmarking, etc... I believe the core Gecko engine is only about a 2 MB download, so it probably wouldn't take much more than that. Ship the executable Gecko renderer with your code, and you are ready to rock .

And how big is the default Java runtime environment these days? (forget about .NET)

Kmeleon is a great little browser for Windows, by the way. 4.5 MB download, imitates IE bookmarking, etc... and now includes a tabbed browsing interface (although they call it "layered" browsing).

Oh, and its fast

It seems that it doesn't render within the <window></window> tags. I have a sample window up on the temp server now generated server side to test the chrome on the different gecko implementations. Mozilla, Natscape and Pheonix render the chrome normal - Kmeleon renders it fine, but renders as a web page and not a chrome implementation.

Here is the window pack ->

-chrome http://cheetah-soft.com/test_chrome.php

Just add that in your shortcut pointing to your gecko browser, like so ->

"F:\Mozilla\mozilla.exe" -chrome http://cheetah-soft.com/test_chrome.php

I also want to test that on the new AOL 8.0 to see how it renders, if it renders at all.....

It renders the contents within the <window> tags, but it just treats the window container like a standard HTML document, ignoring the <window> tag attributes. So, for Kmeleon it looks like you have to use standard Javascript window.open() methods to set your window height and width attributes. http://games.mozdev.org/ uses that method, and all the games work exactly the same with Kmeleon as with Mozilla.

So really, what we are talking about is not having complete control of the chrome, as you do with full Mozilla.

Not a bad trade-off, though. Apparently, everything else works. So for web-based apps, it might be better to stick with standard DOM-style window opening and sizing. For more serious applications, though, chrome control is a big necessity.

Think about it: all we have to do is convince a few of the right people to write a XUL/Gecko plug-in for IE, and one for Opera, and XUL web applications could be pretty much universal. I can't see how this would be very difficult. Gecko is much smaller than the standard Java plug-in, which is supported by almost all browsers. It must be possible to make Gecko perform as a regular browser plug-in, invoked whenever XUL tags are loaded.

An IE plug-in is exactly what I have been thinking. Maybe we can do some browsing around to see if anyone on the net is up to the task of starting on a plug-in.....

I agree jpenn, that would be the big turning point.

You know, another intresting thing to do would be to create a complete browser implementation and distribute it to the ISP services accross the county and in other countries for free. Create the XUL framework to be as simple as possible with well written instructions for the isp services to brand the implementation theirselves so they can distribute it as their own software package to their customers. That would offer limitless possibilities to the isp's while pushing the gecko application to more and more people.

Just something to add to the chest of possible ways to help generate a wider audience.......

Actually, I have found a few hints of discussions about this in the Mozilla newsgroups (netscape.public.mozilla.plugins, for example). Perhaps we should search through there and voice our opinions in appropriate threads. I found one mention there about a "cross-platform plugin
architecture". This seemed to be more a discussion of a Gecko runtime sort of concept, not necessarily a browser plugin, but it seems to me the two projects could go together well.

We should definitely get involved in Mozilla advocacy, though , one way or another.

Well, thats almost a must. With our current project, we will have some sort of outlet integrated somewhere within the project, a sort of just Mozilla/XUL propaganda site, or something of that sort, seperated from the main project.....

Well, it's close. Mozilla as an ActiveX control.

http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/mozilla.htm

Cool thread, wish there was more I could offer by way of discussion If only I had more time, am sooo interested in checking out XUL. I'm stuck in UI dev at the moment will plain old javascript trying to make it work in both IE and Moz as you do. Cannot wait to have a play with XUL though. I think an IE plug in would be great, but I'd also like to figure out a way to convince the entire world to switch from IE to Mozilla.

I have discovered another barrier to corporate adoption: Mozilla (like almost all other browsers besides IE) has real troubles accessing the web through a Microsoft proxy server. I am talking about the infamous NTLM authentication scheme for Windows-only networks. I believe there is an attempt to solve this for Mozilla, and it is listed in Bugzilla, but I wonder how easy it will be to solve.

Typical M$ I was just wondering considering what XUL actually is, ie an XML User-Interface Language, could Mozilla approach w3c and suggest it as a standard/specification?

Already been submitted - had the page to the submission, I will look for it again and post a link....

Well I hope those w3c do the right thing, because I think XUL is so needed. Those Moz guys are smart cookies alright.

Thanks Joe.