Surely it would be the Web Applications Formats WG? Looks like they're already looking at it, in fact.

I'm pretty sure many XUL developers would agree with their statement...

It would be nice if it was a standard though :)

There is a lot of buzz around RIAs, but if these are by definition browser-based, then their shelf-life and usefulness is limited.

If they are not browser-based, but based on a more general internet-connected application runtime, then we have a whole new ballgame. We now are talking about IDAs (Internet-aware Desktop Applications, or WDA, webfied desktop applications, I like the first)

In this case, cross-browser support doesn't mean anything! Only cross-platform support. Adobe is going to have to get people to install Apollo for their IDAs to run. Mozilla will need to get XULRunner installer for their IDAs.

Thats where I think the comparison is, Apollo v XULRunner. I am *really* liking XULRunner, and even more so when they get a OS X UB build out. I have built two applications on XULRunner, and enjoyed the experience.

From what I hear, when users install Firefox 3 they will have XULRunner! Awesome! But in order to get Apollo, users will have to install it as it's own download and install.

And I like the various features of XULRunner, like native widgets with the OS LnF. And the wide array of utils, and objects to use. And the dependable history of Gecko serving Firefox, and Thunderbird.

Heck, it sounds like Adobe is even using Gecko as its base for Apollo!!

We need more XUL, and XULRunner evangelism specifically. This is stuff that should be in the spotlight NOW!

Benjamin S's blog is awesome, but we need more developer-end-users speaking out on their experiences, and the capabilities, and possibilities with XULRunner.