[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Not because I dislike it, but because I don't always
need it cluttering up the client. Otherwise, an
n-tier architecture makes a lot of sense over a
two tier regardless of the web. It always has.
I have been carefully saying "HTML Browser". A
client can be web-aware and XML-capable and
never touch HTML. So we agree. A dedicated
client may not be browsing; it may be processing
only that XML that it cares about. My position
is that, and I did say this, that what we
call a web browser could change. In that sense,
any client on the system can be web aware and
can still be smart.
Remember, I was a designer for the MID. I've
done this UIVM concept before. It isn't an
innovation per se of the web. University
of Waterloo folks did this too before Netscape
existed. I don't have the URL for you because
it was documented in an article in an old
fashioned mag in a library but you can be sure
it's been done before. The MID apps worked
wonderfully. Yuri dissed them because he
needed market share and HTML got that for him.
We fought over that unfortunately. Still,
it was a neat idea. Glad to see you like it.
The future is never inevitable this side of
a marketing brochure.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
Note that HTML is irrelevant to the analsysis. JavaScript is irrelevant.
We could replace them with PDF and C# and the Web would still have been
a compelling application deployment platform (if a little poky!) because
of the key factors. Len wants to put HTML front and center, I guess
because he dislikes it, but it is increasingly irrelevant to the issue
except as infrastructure.
|
