Is XUL obscure? That's OK.

The article of XUL appeared on XML.com this February. It's a very recent article, which is a bit strange. I mean it is the least likely appearing one. As the writer describes XUL as "a little-known use," it is obscure technology. I like XUL, and feel happy to support it; however, I admit XUL application has been slowed its development speed for more than a couple of years except products from Mozilla foundation. Accordingly, I wondered why XUL was up in this time of period. Exciting, I read the article.

This article introduces XUL, supposedly, to readers who don't know it. The writer tries to impress the readers superiority of XUL by comparing with DHTML. The tree example successfully achieved this scheme. Rendering speed is fast; appearance is good. On the contrary, the writer says DHTML is more convenient than XUL implicitly. DHTML works on every browser including Firefox. This, of course, isn't the purpose, but his concern to DHML would help the readers' interest turn to DHTML. That he introduces the utility available for both XUL and DHTML might spur the readers on. I know the writer wanted to defend from a counter-argument. The number of users of XUL-enabled browsers is very small, so programmers are reluctant to support XUL. I mind the readers conclude they don't choose XUL because they need to write not only XUL but also DHTML.

I like XUL, for its programming is simple. It has rich UI, besides, works fast. An XML file is all I need to make UI. I like to write XML, so XUL is fun for me. I think it isn't necessary for XUL to fit into the world all browsers reside. It's all right that XUL is for XUL-lovers' obscure UI. Let's pursuit fun to create own UI by XUL.