[whatwg] 1.2 scope

[Ian Hickson]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Justin Kirby wrote:
>
> XUL is not proprietary. It is limited to a single implementation, but 
> that does not mean it is exclusive. The word proprietary indicates that 
> it is under exclusive control of an company. While this is true of Flash 
> and Macromedia, it is not true of XUL and Mozilla.

Sure it is. Microsoft couldn't come along and have equal say in the 
development of XUL, not like they could with the WHATWG or W3C specs.

(Disclosure: I'm one of the editors of the woefully incomplete XUL spec.)

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