Re: XUL or not XUL

Charles Goodwin wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 10:51 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>Many industry acronyms are generic by nature -- XML, HTML, XSL, DOM, CD, 
>>DVD, XUL, etc. Yet they are all specific to one language or technology.
> 
> Um, all the examples you quote above are actual language definitions.
> Mozilla XUL is merely an application of a language.  XUL itself is not a
> language, but a toolkit.  There's a distinct difference.
> 
> I do agree/concede that XUL is a term coined by the Mozilla project, but
> an equivalent to XML/HTML/DOM/etc it is not.  Rather, XUL is comparable
> to technologies like Qt and Gtk.

    This is largely a matter of standardization. For instance, XBL 2.0 
is currently in the process of being standardized, and XBL 1.0 was 
submitted to W3C. Is XBL equivalent to XML/HTML/DOM/etc., with regards 
to being a language and technology, or will it have to be a standard first?

> Does XUL not mean Xml User-interface Language?

    I think it officially standards for "XML User Interface Language", 
but it's referred to in some Mozilla webpages as the "XML-based User 
Interface Language" or the "eXtensible User interface Language". So what 
does "XUL" stand for as a generic term?

    The real question is whether people would be using "XUL" as a 
generic term if Mozilla hadn't coined it first. After all, if you take 
the first letters of "XML User Interface Language", you get "XUIL". I 
suspect that, in fact, people like Gerald would be using acronyms like 
"XUI" or "UIML" (which I believe are the names of specific languages as 
well).

> Hence you must see the ambiguity, and hence room for disagreement.
> Laying claim to such a generic acronym is asking for trouble.

    Who's to say it's a generic acronym? It's not. It's a specific 
acronym that's be co-opted for generic purposes. It just happens to be 
an acronym flexible enough for generic use.

 > You don't
> see Microsoft objecting to MyXAML, do you?  And XAML is a more specific
> acronym than XUL!!!

    Perhaps this is because...

1) XAML already stood for "Transaction Authority Markup Language".

2) Microsoft doesn't claim a trademark on the term "XAML":

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx

3) Microsoft frequently has the acronym in quotations, which suggests 
that they may rename the technology at a later date:

http://longhorn.msdn.microsoft.com/lhsdk/core/overviews/about%20xaml.aspx

> For sake of argument (i.e. we don't do this), if the Vexi project was to
> refer to VexiCode as VexiXUL, would you object?

    Of course he would. It's a trademark violation, and therefore a 
violation of the law. Why would you support such a thing? Because you 
don't believe the Mozilla Foundation will prosecute?


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt