| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XBL article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Mozilla Start‑class (inactive) | ||||||
| |||||||
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Why are almost-but-not-quite-all acronyms surrounded by single quotes? Is this intentional for some reason or is it a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.15 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 May 2007
In the second paragraph, the part that says " the language is not currently described by any formal standard " I gather the term XBL has now come to refer equally to XBL 2.0 which (as the following sentence in the article points out) is covered by a formal standard. Hence, I think that particular clause should be stricken or at least moved afterward as a parenthetic remark (a previous version known simply as XBL was developed by Mozilla, and was never standardized and is thus proprietary to Mozilla). David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The XBL2.0 specification has been now been abandoned. That said, the description "proprietary to Mozilla" is completely inaccurate. That would imply Mozilla exercises some claim of ownership over the language which would prevent others from using it. That is not the case. The fact that a language has only one implementation doesn't make it proprietary. Troyp (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
