Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Michael Champion wrote:
> On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 09:23 America/Detroit, Bullard, Claude L
> (Len) wrote:
> > It is the performance of the mush of different XML
> > languages and objects that would make me wince.
It gets compiled down. XAML is the source-code format, not the executable
> > One
> > has to ask, why do this in XML at all.
> I've been wondering that myself. Isn't the whole point of XML
> portability (or interoperability) across platforms, at the price of
> "bloated" data and "inefficient" performance? That's usually a good
> tradeoff, but not if you stay in a proprietary box.
That's a point of XML, but I don't know that it's the only one. If you
were making a declarative, human-readable UI-description language,
wouldn't you use XML even if you suspected that the only application to
use it was your own resource compiler? Bloat and inefficiency aren't
concerns here; developer/designer ease-of-use is.
And if you add in the possibility of making XAML a target of XSLT
transforms, or an output format of graphic design tools (apparently, Adobe
demonstrated something like that at the PDC), you do get some exchange and