Benjamin D. Smedberg
bsmedberg at covad.net
Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:51:18 -0500
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I don't like the name 'libxul'. Most embedders think they're embedding
> Gecko, not XUL. Seems to me it would make a lot more sense to call it
At first I thought I didn't care; now I realize I do:
Whatever we name this beast, it needs to be pithy, descriptive, and
obvious. KHTML is a great name for a web engine: it tells you basically
what you're getting.
libgecko is a poor name. Gecko is a codename. Certainly, it's a
well-known codename, with more public awareness than "trident" or even
khtml, but it's not descriptive or obvious. An illustrious heritage does
not a good name make.
I thought briefly about the name "ghtml", short for "gecko html". But
the G prefix normally belongs to GNOME; it seems weird to enter that
I chose "libxul" because it helps strengthen our trademark on the name
"XUL", and because XUL development is the actual target. I'm very happy
to have "html-only" embedders or networking-only embedders along for the
ride; indeed, we should promote that approach rather than ransacking
bits and pieces of our tree.
I'm open to other suggestions, but I feel strongly that the name should
be more obvious than "libgecko".