Talk:XUL

message: I know this seems really trivial, but I think we should decide which pronunciation of "XUL" we are going to imply in this article, and stick with it: the article repeatedly refers to the fact that it is pronounced as a word ("zool"); but it also uses the phrasing "an XUL document", which would only be correct if it were pronounced as letters ("an ex you ell document", as opposed to "a zool document"). 
Also, the sentence "The initialism can be pronounced as zool (to rhyme with "cool")." is, if I understand the distinction correctly, somewhat contradictory - if it is pronounced as a word, it is called an acronym even by those who make the distinction [personally, I am one of those who use the word "acronym" for all such formations, howsoever formed or pronounced, but I respect the opinion of those who feel a distinction is necessary] Looking around, I find increasing evidence that "zool" (or "zuul") is not only a possible pronunciation, but the correct one; just about every introduction to the technology mentions this straight away, e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/joy-of-xul.html So I'm going to go through and make the article reflect this; feel free to challenge my reasoning and/or decision by responding here. - IMSoP 15:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed back to "Zool" as it is what used in The Joy of XUL. --Minghong 19:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess telling someone to pronounce it as "Zuul" isn't really much help, since that's an odd spelling in its own right. I guess I was getting a bit carried away by the film-reference reasoning. - IMSoP 02:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a zool document" vs "an ex you ell document" 

message: Can we include a reference to the fact that implementing an application's UI with XUL results in a tradeoff of convenience versus performance/responsiveness of the interface?  Seems like a pretty important thing to note, in my opinion.  This behavior is consistently quite evident on Firefox 1.0 and 1.5 on the 5 Windows systems I've tested personally ranging from 450MHz to 1.8GHz. J. Straub 20:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance impact resulting from using XUL 

message: I propose the removal of this panel, that sounds as a stupidity.
Booles 12:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the frame "there is not data there is only xul..."

message: As far as I see it, it looks like Apple is using XUL (or some subset of it) for defining property panels in QuickTime 7 for Windows. Files are at: C:\Program Files\QuickTime\PropertyPanels\*.pdef
I don't feel 100% certain of it, so please somebody else check it so it can be added to the article.
Psz 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QuickTime for Windows uses XUL 

message: The article says: "Such documents also suffer from various limitations of the browser, including the inability to load remote XUL [...]"
I don't get this, since I was sure the named Amazon Browser uses remote XUL without beeing "signed". This might apply to Firefox Add-Ons, is this what the author intended to say? --85.179.157.231 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remote XUL =

message: In this section it mentions WPF as a "similar language". This would not be correct as WPF is a UI component object model similar to GTK, WinForms, and Java Swing that facilitates building graphical applications on MS CLR based runtimes. It is NOT a language nor does it have anything directly to do with any markup language (though the inverse is true). It would be more approriate to link to XAML in this section instead as it is the most often used XML layout format for building WPF applications (though I need to note that XAML specifically doesnt have anything tying it to only GUI applications, see WWF). Unless someone objects, I intend to change this.
jimmyzimms  —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar languages 

message: The document says XUL is licensed: “GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, MPL”. Are you sure? Never heard before of the GPL applying to a language definition (unless GPL is seen as a patent here?). Either this should be removed and it only applies to an XUL interpreter (which is not the same as the language), or it requires some explanations.
--Hibou57 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the license is correct. Whether or not the licenses chosen are strictly suitable for non-code releases, that's the ones that apply here. The specification basically is the reference implementation in this case AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  XUL license? 

message: How does XUL relate to QML? ScotXW (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  QML 

message: I rewrote much of this article today for several reasons:
#Needed a proper history
#Needed real-world explanation of how it's actually used
#Lots of old cruft that needed to be cleaned-up
-Pmffl (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: I propose merger of XBL into XUL for the following reasons:
* As per XBL article, XBL is a binding language used for XUL widgets, which means XBL exists only within the conceptual context of XUL.
* As of 2020, XBL is unlikely to get any more coverage by third-party sources. As per the latest W3C draft[1], XBL is a legacy technology and no practical significance, only historic one. Direct quote: "No browser vendor has plans to implement this specification at this time [2012]. Unless you are interested in the history of the Web's component model, this document is likely not of any use to you."
* Both articles are very small and provide good context for understanding each other. In a way, together they provide informational "cross-context" necessary for understanding either of them.
* I propose merger of XBL into XUL and not the other way around because XBL is a "tool" for XUL. XUL can exist without XBL, as demonstrated by Firefox after XBL removal.
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/
Is this reasoning sound or am I missing something? Thank you.
Anton.bersh (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It's better to keep them separate. XUL is already fairly long and would be cluttered with XBL shimmed in. Plus the same arrangement exists for the sXBL article being separate from SVG. -Pmffl (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge XBL into XUL 

message: chrome is redirected here. why is there literally nothing written about chrome? like, what is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:D99C:C722:A4B4:4E52 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  chrome