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. I'm not even sure what "open" means in this context. How is it "open"? As to proprietary, I don't understand how you're using this term either. 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.
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.
I think the case is actually the opposite: XUL is non-proprietary but not open. XUL, as a whole, is not open documentation-wise because it's not fully documented. However, since anyone can create a forked open source project based on Mozilla that supports XUL, and since the Mozilla Foundation is not opposed to other implementations of XUL, I fail to see how XUL is proprietary.
It can be argued that a subset of XUL is open, which was the whole idea behind my XUL Basic concept. A functional subset of XUL, containing the most common markup, could be standardized to allow others to create products whose content would be compatible with XUL.
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.
Agreed. Because Mozilla is open source, it's only as controlled as the community allows. Just look at XFree86 and X.org.
As to XML languages, in my opinion XAML is an XML language.
Yeah, I don't know where Ian was getting that from. He could have been referring to Avalon, though, which is simply an API.
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? If you're HTML-based, aren't you by its very nature also an XML Language?
What I think he means is that it's designed for HTML, not for XML. It has an XHTML module, but that doesn't make it XML-based any more than XHTML makes HTML XML-based.
Personally, I don't consider it a LANGUAGE. It's a proposed extension to a language (HTML).
------------------------------------------------------- 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
