RE: [xml-dev] Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead, istheresome other standard that should be looked at

["Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>]

> From: Stefano Debenedetti [mailto:sdebenedetti@e-tree.com] 

> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer wrote:
>  > Integrating XForms into
>  > XHTML is actually very straight-forward.
> 
> yes, I'm starting to realize myself I mean something 
> different, I think 
> it is hard, now, to use XForms with tools not yet completely at ease 
> with anything different from HTML 

Yes, because HTML is not XML.
Seriously now, we're in 2002 and one would expect native XHTML support
layered on top of XML support. Instead, current XHTML support is largely
based on "legacy" HTML support software. That's why it's tough to move
along and work with XHTML modularization etc. Most browsers don't even
fully implement namespaces... And namespaces are the means to
distinguish vocabularies these days (RDF people will jump out now:).

> So if it is a matter of tools not supporting XML or the long-awaited 
> layers on top of XML I don't see why I shouldn't worry in 
> front of [2], 
> especially considering I had to use an IFRAME to acheive the whiz 'n 
> bang feature of having an XML available to my FMX movie as a 
> response to 
> an HTTPS POST on ie < 6.

Stef, you are talking about a proprietary plug-in and it's behavior
inside a (also proprietary) browser. I'm not the right guy to discuss
this with ;-)

Cheers,

Manos