'libxul' naming

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 
> "libgecko".

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".