[whatwg] Web Applications Markup Language 1.0 is an XUIL?

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Sun Aug 22 05:19:17 PDT 2004

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> I don't really understand the term "XUIL", though, it's a bit like 
>> "UUIL" ("Unicode User Interface Language") or "UILUET" ("User Interface 
>> Language Using English Tags") -- highlighting one minor aspect of the 
>> language to the exclusion of others.
> It's a category of extensible markup languages used for constructing 
> user interfaces. It's not supposed to be too specific, as it describes 
> more than one language. Then again, you should know this, since you 
> invented the term:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6919373

I was just trying to find Gerald some alternative acronyms so he didn't 
use the already-taken XUL. At the same time I asked him why he was 
concerned with XML-based UILs rather than any UI description languages.

> If this is the case, I'd prefer that it be called "Web Apps 1.0". 
> Calling part of something that already is a language a "language" is 
> just confusing.


> > > 2) While WAML1 elements require a namespace? If so, how will this be
> > > handled in HTML user agents that don't support namespaces?
> > 
> > This will be handled identically to the way HTML4/XHTML 1.1 and Web Forms
> > 2.0 handle it.
> So generally, there are no namespaces unless you're using a mixed XML 
> document.

Apart from the default namespace on the root element, right.

> > > 4) Will WAML1 borrow heavily from existing web-based XUILs, such as XUL
> > > 1.0, or will it be a complete reinvention?
> > 
> > It's an extension of HTML4. The primary concern is compatibility with HTML
> > documents and UAs in the various ways that have been discussed on this list
> > before. So it will be heavily influenced by HTML, and will of course be
> > influenced by all the other languages that all the people contributing to
> > Web Apps have experience with.
> So, as long as we use markup that fits into the HTML4 model, there's 
> nothing really stopping us from using markup from an XUIL, correct?

Correct, just like there's nothing stopping us from adopting interfaces 
from other DOM specs (e.g. Web Apps currently adopts one of the interfaces 
from SVG 1.2, of all places).

Such adoptions should be done on a case-by-case basis though, and only if 
they make good sense on their own merit.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list