[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
There is a chicken and egg problem. Until someone builds
that "universal, XML-native, SVG/XForms/etc.-aware browser platform"
and proves **performance**, implementability, ease of applicability,
authorability, usability and so on, then puts it in enough development
environments, the small but smart dedicated clients have
the road. The tools to build these are already on the
desktops and in the developer's toolkits.
I'm not sure what marginalization means in this context. The
compelling argument against the smart small clients is not that they do
anything harmful to the web but that they require installation
and setup. N-tier thin clients can be delivered via an email
message as long as everything they need to hook up on the server
is already there.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
Hmmm ... There may not be an urgent need for the details of XHTML 2.0,
but there is a VERY urgent need to promote the vision of the universal,
XML-native, SVG/XForms/etc.-aware browser platform to counter the
trends back to proprietary fat client systems that some seem willing to
accept. I agree with Len (I think) that these are good options for
industrial-strength vendors to have, but they can't be allowed to
marginalize the Web as it is and could be.
Of course, the challenge is more to get implementations of what there
is than to standardize all the innovations coming from the browser
developers, but there still needs to be a strong XHTML activity to center
this on.
|
