Talk:Extensible Application Markup Language

Remove Criticism Section

Not saying that we shouldn't have criticism, but everything in the section currently is specific to WPF/Silverlight's use of XAML, not the XAML format itself. XAML can be used for any kind of object creation, including Windows Forms or non-visual objects. I don't think that this current criticism belongs in this article. Bytemaster (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First: the text talks less about the solution and more on how it would/will be used. One could even say that it smells the possibility of being written by MS folks themselves.

Second: true or false the first point, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the "criticism" section. It does the same as hundreds of Wiki articles: it clarifies the reader with respect to possible outcomes of this technology, tendencies and/or deployment strategies. In fact, the section "criticism" is the best part of the whole article. --201.47.12.214 (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As User:Bytemaster notes, the criticism section is about Silverlight's use of XAML specifically, not the XAML format in general. Based on the statements of the ECIS, it appears they don't understand the distinction. In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I am moving the criticism content into the existing Criticism section in the Silverlight article. WalterGR (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent edit. Thanks! Christopher G Lewis (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Wiki pages should stick to providing information useful to people wanting to know about a subject, not as a platform for those trying politicise a topic. Why is it that every wiki page about a Microsoft technology needs to have a caveat which basically invalidates its existance? Its petty and childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.18.219 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Write on every microsoft technology article a section 'criticism'! Fight with the evil! Save the world! Galaxy in the danger! Jerks. 95.109.233.24 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)closed source wiki/gnu/jerkshater

Example

It would be nice to have a formatted example of what an XAML file looks like.

Like a .nib file?

So would this be the Windows equivalent of an OSX/X-Code .nib file? -- stewacide 05:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Multi io (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Not sure [whether this is like a .nib file], but it's all a bit confusing to me. XAML, Shouldn't that be pronounced 'ex-aye-em-el' - not zammel? -- User:Unknown

Quite a few acronyms are given pronounciations, like SCSI. I'm guessing Microsoft gave it the pronounciation "zammel" as they're hoping it to become so popular that it'll be used frequently in conversations: the 2-syllable "zammel" is easier to say than the 4-syllable "XAML". -- jeffthejiff (talk)

I had the displeasure of hearing a representative from Microsoft Australia advertise the 'exciting, colourful future' to me and a hundred other students at a guest lecture, and he repeatedly referred to XAML as "zammel". I don't see (hear?) anything odd about the pronounciation, it's not so different from 'Xylophone' etc. Thomas Purnell 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here in Poland Microsoft teaches us to pronounce it as "gzaml", 1-syllable word.

I must agree that ex-aye-emm-el would make more sense, but it sounds more like HTML, and Microsoft wouldn't want that. As for its odd pronunciation, all I must say is that it sounds much more "cool" and easier to say. 68.72.166.44 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft "invented" the language, and I attended one of their earlier summits (Get Ready For a New Day in Seattle) where all the Microsoft reps pronounced it "zammel," or, more concisely, "zamml." RealmRPGer (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be [zæ:ml̩] instead of [zæ:mɛl]? I definitely have a syllabic [l], not a regular vowel, as the second syllable's nucleus. -- Arthaey 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unneeded?

(inappropriate comment removed)

Sure you will. You, up against several hundred architects, developers, managers, testers, and documentation writers, on their home turf in Seattle. Good luck with that! -/- Warren 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to write in it, and I do hate it. Good luck, man you have my moral support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.29.170.120 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

well, others love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.184.51 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to EU

What kind of information offer the Link to the EU about XAML ??? --Lastwebpage 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to XBAP

Should this article be moved to "XBAP." That is the shortened and most used name. Trueshow111 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The article is about a markup language as a whole. It's used in XBAP, Silverlight and WPF windows applications.

Anuandraj (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

Should the expansion of XAML be Extensible Avalon Markup Language? Anuandraj (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Avalon is an internal code name anyway

Xamarin

Xamarin (some of the main people behind the Mono project) have also brought a (growing) subset of XAML (Xamarin.Forms) to Android, iOS, MacOS-X etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.184.51 (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

...plus Microsoft is now acquiring Xamarin

issue with a reference

says " External link in |title=" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.79.74 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extensible Application Markup Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011212059/http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/rrelyea/archive/2004/01.aspx to http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/rrelyea/archive/2004/01.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)