[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>Obviously you haven't taken a look at XAML beyond noticing that it an
>XML-based markup language that does widgets. It is ASP.NET for the the
>desktop. It is amazing for one to claim that HTML is being replaced here
>unless you are claiming that 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.
>
>
I am walking on both sides of the barbed wire fence on this one: the
richer diversity
of layout managers the better.
I have been experimenting with using HTML as a layout manager for dialog
pages in
Java (non-WWW) desktop applications recently, and it does allow several
things that
the existing layout managers don't provide. Like interspersing controls
inside
rich text and hyperlinking. (JavaWorld this month has a timely article
by Alan Holub giving
his way to do this. Check the very funny reader comments: along the
lines "why would
any one want to do this?")
Also I have been playing around with SwiXml, which is an open source
XUL-thing
presenting a thing layer on Swing. This allows windows and so on to be
dynamically created
from XML.
So Java programmers also have available mechanisms for going from XML
descriptions of
the GUI, and XML descriptions of rich pages containing arbitrary
controls. Obviously
XAML should allow much more seamless interaction, but on the other hand
the tools for making HTML pages are not rare. I expect the XUL
generation and
the XAML marketing will make these kinds of approaches much more for all
application
programmers, not just MS .NET programmers.
>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.
>
>
So, Dare, are you are stating that Microsoft will not push XAML as a
replacement/alternative
for HTML, and not distribute free browsers for it? People who just make
spurious
accusations make me sick; fortunately this nasty buzzword you mention
could be largely
quelled very easily by MS stating this as a policy. I look forward to
the press release.
In any case, surely the point about monopoly power is that it changes
the significance
of anything the monopolist does, compared to the significance of what a
small player can do.
Time Warner cannot "replace" and has little to "defend" with Mozilla.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
