Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (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.
But, see, here's the thing: The problem Microsoft was solving was "What's
the best way to allow users to specify the UI in their Windows client
applications?" Right now, if you don't use an IDE, you have to hand-write
C# code (which is un-fun) , but with Longhorn, they (sensibly) decided to
use an XML-based UI language for declarative UI purposes.
Now, given that this is the problem they're trying to solve, and given
that (as we both agree) none of the existing W3C specs out there solve
that problem, whyever _wouldn't_ they create their own XML vocabulary?
And what's at all wrong about them doing so?
The alternative to XAML isn't XHTML, it's "#region Windows Form Designer
> 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
> XML openness.
If it's a land grab, it's a grab of the Windows client interface, which
they've pretty much owned from the start.