[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
- From: David Megginson <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:32:17 -0500
Tim Bray writes:
> At 11:41 AM 27/02/01 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> >I think that client-side XML failed simply because it didn't fill a
> >big enough real need (HTML 4 is close enough)
> I have a problem with your verb tense. The web is still too slow.
> Fatter pipes aren't going to help. The only way to make it fast
> is to do some of the work on the (severely underemployed, these
> days) client, and the only way to do that is to send some useful
> data there to get chewed on. So I think client-side XML just
> hasn't got going yet. To say it had failed, it would be
> necessary for it to have been tried. -Tim
Browsers that support XML + stylesheets (especially CSS) are available
on millions of desktops, both in the closed source world (MSIE) and in
the open-source world (Mozilla), and have been for a couple of years.
We can debate about particulars -- MSIE's support for XSL was pathetic
for a long time, Mozilla took its time making its DOM stable, etc. --
but that's splitting hairs: most specs' backers would have been
grateful for a tiny fraction of the exposure and implementation that
browser-side XML has already had. If it's not flying yet, it's
probably not going to.
Note, however, that I have shifted from the phrase "client-side XML"
to the phrase "browser-side XML". In fact, I do agree that
data-oriented XML (SOAP, RDF, or what-have-you) makes an awful lot of
sense for non-browser client-side applications, and my original choice
of words was a little misleading.
All the best,
David Megginson email@example.com