[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
dareo@microsoft.com (Dare Obasanjo) writes:
>HTML is an appropriate mechanism for
>building client applications. Then again, Tim Bray keeps claiming as
>much so that may actually be your argument as ludicrous as it may
>sound.
Yeah, Dare, a lot of people find that outright ordinary. Heck, even
obvious. And if certain companies would get around to supporting HTML,
CSS, SVG, and heck, maybe even XForms, that'd be a lot easier for a lot
of people than chaining themselves to Microsoft via XAML.
>As Len has already pointed out, it is interesting to note that when
>the Mozilla folks come up with XUL it is innovative use of XML but
>when Microsoft does something similar it is "Replace & Defend" or
>whatever is the new anti-Microsoft buzzphrase.
XUL's not nearly as all-encompassing, and yes, I have doubts about that
too, if smaller ones. Nor does Mozilla have the same kind of corporate
muscles.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
