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. Does XUL not mean Xml User-interface Language? Hence you must see the ambiguity, and hence room for disagreement. Laying claim to such a generic acronym is asking for trouble. You don't see Microsoft objecting to MyXAML, do you? And XAML is a more specific acronym than XUL!!! 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? -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Online @ http://charlie.vexico.com ------------------------------------------------------- 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 _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list xul-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
