Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 07:59 PM, Paul Prescod wrote:
>> Agreed! In fact, even well-architected desktop apps have a clear
>> separation of concerns between the user interface, the control logic
>> and the data. Today, it makes increasing sense to express that
>> separation using XML over sockets (rather than putting SQL in the UI).
> And this is better how? You swap one linear syntax over sockets for
> another linear syntax over sockets and this is supposed to make it
> elegant because its <genuflect>XML</genuflect>? These two approaches
> are fundamentally the same thing.
>> Based on dHTML, XUL, dSVG, HTML, java, .NET? I can't predict yet.
>> These days I'm experimenting with dynamic SVG. I'd love to see XUL
> No, none of these are enough (well, maybe java, only the current
> implementations aren't up to it). These only specify *appearances* not
> behavior. We want to get behavior into the UI layer.
Ummmm. Probably 70% of the web sites I interact with every day have
> Somewhere in between was a balanced approach that bound behavior with
> data into entities we called "objects". It is my opinion that browsers
> need to move from glorified page layout engines with ugly scripting
> languages towards full blown distributed object engines that happen to
> have rich page layout capabilities.
Sure. People have been arguing that for the last ten years. I've argued
against them on a variety of occasions but I don't have the time today.
> Let us not forget that the browser was designed to share documents.
> Application delivery was a secondary concern and its definitely a force
> fit. The paradigm is wrong and switching from HTML to ZZML isn't going
> to change that.
applications to be delivered dynamically today. It isn't _standardized_,
but it works.