Unless something changed and I missed it, Gerv has nothing to do with Mozillazine. It's probably Alex who posted the article.

I'm not a MozillaZine editor. :-)

Gerv

Cool, Mozilla saved the subject from my previous post on mozillazine.org and I didn't see it.... ;-)

Any random XML based declarative interface langauge.

> So what does Gerald Bauer mean by "XUL"?

Well, I invite you to check out the Open XUL Alliance site @ http://xul.sourceforge.net and judge for yourself. You might also wonna check out the Luxor XUL Toolkit @ http://luxor-xul.sourceforge.net and see what the hairsplitting about the XUL acronym is all about. Peace.

PS: Check out the slide by Ben Galbrait form "Swing and SWT and Alternatives" talk titled XUL that sums it up online @ http://www.carlsbadcubes.com/blog/life/sdss.html

geraldb: what about 10000% pure copyright and trademark infringement ? Please give us a break.

If anybody cared to check, there's already a Mozilla Meetup Day. See http://mozilla.meetup.com Peace.

So you're sick of us, and we're sick of you, and yet you continue to maintain the foolish expectation that we're all suddenly going to change our minds. If you're sick of 10000% pure Mozilla, then leave it alone.

Gerald, please realize that this isn't about pure anything. It's about using a name that Mozilla users have associated with a specific technology-- XUL. (Not just any XML UI Language: XUL.) You seem interested in everyone getting along; the solution to this would be to pick an acronym other than XUL for your generalized term. *XUL* is not a generalized term.

Please consider it. It would be nothing other than a change of terminology, and would prevent further flamewars. If you're interested enough in the Mozilla community to send articles in to MozillaZine, surely you have an interest in having that community's goodwill. As it stands now, your submission of these articles using the term XUL in a non-specific, incorrect sense is just giving you more trouble.

We're not against your developing XML user interface languages. We're not arguing about whether Mozilla alone gets us anywhere. We're just against your refusal to realize that the XUL term is not generic; i.e. it has become more than what it stands for, just as IBM has gone past developing "business machines."

If I start a business selling international business machines, i won't name it IBM, as IBM stands for a specific thing, whether it coincides with the acronym or not. If I settle a Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, I won't call it TCPA, as TCPA is M$/Intel's one.

The same here. XUL is the XML dialect used in Mozilla, without mattering if it is the acronym of XML User Interface Language or not. If all UI languages based on XML must be called XUL, it would become a generic term, what it not. So for you, XAML is XUL, and thus we can also say Mozilla uses XAML, as they are synonymous.

It's not and never has been about Mozilla/Gecko being the sole XUL renderer (at least not among the serious responders). If you want to make your own renderer (Luxor or what have you) and use it, fine! No one here will care a bit; hey, we might even start using it if it's not buggy and lets us put textboxes in scrollboxes (bug 107520). Just don't call it a XUL renderer *unless* it renders only Mozilla-approved elements/attributes in the Mozilla XUL namespace (extensions in separate namespaces are still okay, as Mozilla does with XHTML) and returns an error on all other elements/attributes wrongly placed in that namespace. In that case it's an XML UI Language renderer (or whatever you want to call it, be it XUIL, XIL, etc.), but it's not an XUL renderer.