Re: [xml-dev] Microsoft Hypes Up XUL As The Greatest Expiriment Since Ad

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 15:56, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> Hmm. To me it looks like XAML is considerably better designed than 
> XUL. This is very much like the difference between SVG and XSL-FO 
> that I wrote about in Item 11 of Effective XML, Make structure 
> explicit through markup. XUL is using a double syntax with embedded 
> CSS. The syntax should be XML, even if the semantics come from CSS. 
> XAML and XSL-FO get this right. XUL and SVG get this wrong. 

I think that there are many different issues here:

     1. The syntax (should it be CSS or XML).
     2. The data model for selectors (should it be CSS or XPath).
     3. The separation between style and structure.

It would be very useful to define an alternative XML syntax for CSS, but
this would be pointless if this syntax was relying on CSS selectors
rather than XPath expressions

And (except for XSL-FO which is designed to be the final result of a
transformation) the ability to separate the style from the structure of
the document is equally important than the convergence with XML/XPath.

In other words, if that's a mistake to use CSS which is neither XML nor
XPath friendly, that would be an equally big mistake to impose that the
style is embedded in the structure!

Eric
-- 
Read me on XML.com.
                                            http://www.xml.com/pub/au/74
Upcoming schema tutorial:
 - Philadelphia (7/12/2003)       http://makeashorterlink.com/?V28612FC5
Tutoriel XSLT:
 - Paris (25/11/2003)             http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2C623FC5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------