Lists Home |
Date Index |
Wait a minute. They also enable us to serialize objects
we control. That is what extensible means. That they do
it with CLR implemented languages only makes sense from
their perspective. Better than the HTML straitjacket
and waiting for results to come from committees controlled
elsewhere with agendas that may not have anything to do with
the businesses we are in.
As I said, enough standards to be polite but not enough
to turn us into roadkill. We need room to experiment out
here in middle tier land because we keep getting schemas
and other artifacts that are not that useful to us. This
opens up room to implement at the layer where we need it.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
email@example.com (Mike Kozlowski) writes:
>That's really nothing like XHTML, XForms, or SVG; and I don't see a
>straightforward way to adapt those technologies to Microsoft's purpose.
Uh, yeah. That reinforces my point. Microsoft seems to see XML as a
wonderful format for serializing object structures they control, rather
than as any kind of commons where shared formats are exchange.
No single part of XAML is about replacing particular structures, but the
project as a whole is a breathtaking land-grab with a veneer of tasty
On the bright side, they also seem to have discarded W3C XML Schema in
favor of WinFS, probably because there wasn't a "straightforward way to
adapt those technologies to Microsoft's purpose."
That one I can sympathize with.