On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Marc Clifton wrote: > > I guess we have different understandings of the term "open". For > example, by your definition, .NET is "open" because Microsoft provides > the runtime for free.
It's the term "free" that we differ on. I was using it in the sense of "free speech", as in unrestricted, you are using it in the sense "free beer", as in no cost. IMHO the cost in such things is largely immaterial; it's freedom that counts. > Proprietary to me means that the internal workings, architecture, and > specifications are private--the public doesn't have access to them. I > don't see what proprietary has to do with something being a standard or > not. Proprietary just means that it is under the control of one entity, not that it is somehow secret. > By these definitions, when you say XUL is an open, proprietary product, > it seems like you mean it's a free, non-standard, architectural and > implementation closed, single vendor controlled runtime. Its implementation is not closed -- that's what I mean by "open". Everything else is correct, though. > How is it different from Microsoft's XAML in that sense? It isn't. XAML and XUL don't really differ on that level, except that the vendor that owns XAML is a corporation, and the vendor that owns XUL is a free software community. (XAML and XUL do, of course, differ a lot at a technical level.) > So, in fact, XUL is JUST LIKE any other independent, proprietary XML > language. I certainly don't see the difference, based on your > definitions. No wonder you have problems saying anything else in that > section. It's because, in fact, there is no difference. Claiming there > is, is indefensible! I agree. However, it isn't XUL that is being compared to other independent, proprietary XML languages in that section. It is XUL _and_ those languages that are being compared to Web Apps 1.0, a specification developed in public by the WHATWG community, and not "owned" by any one entity (other than in an editorial sense). > How you use the terms "controlled by a single vendor" and "community" in > the same sentence is beyond me. "Controlled" means, well, > controlled--the vendor makes the final decisions. OK, maybe there's a > community of people that make suggestions, but come on, if it's > controlled, then someone is doing the controlling. Yes, in the XUL case, the control is with the module owner. Anyone, however, can put in an effort to contribute to the community and _become_ that module owner, unlike with, say, Microsoft, where only certain Microsoft staff have the ability and opportunity to control the spec. This also differs from groups like the W3C, where control is held by the W3C members (with ultimate control resting with the W3C director, Tim Berners Lee), and the WHATWG, where control is held by anyone who e-mails the WHATWG mailing list (with ultimate control resting with a small group calling themselves the WHATWG members, which includes myself). Customarily, one-vendor models such as XUL's and XAML's are termed "proprietary". If that vendor is community-based, as in Mozilla's case, then it is controlled by a community. > As to XML languages, in my opinion XAML is an XML language. Avalon > implements specific parsers which are reflected (as in a mirror, not > C#/Java "reflection") in the XML syntax. XAML is a serialisation format for Avalon structures, yes. But it would just as easily be possible to make a non-XML serialisation (such as CAML or BAML). That doesn't make Avalon into an XML language. > In another posting, you said "Web Apps 1.0 isn't an XML language, it's > HTML-based." Erm, am I missing something here? Isn't HTML and XML > language? No, HTML is not an XML language. HTML is (at best) an SGML languge and (in reality) its own language with its own parsing rules. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
