[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Web browser on the client side is awful for dynamic
> rich-client apps.
> I'd much rather implement it in something like XUL,
> but lack of good XUL
> documentation is a sign that I am going to end up
> spending more time
> figure it out than actually getting stuff done.
Just to clear up some misunderstanding between XUL
and the inbreed Microsoft-only XAML disaster.
XUL in contrast to Microsoft's XAML doesn't replace
HTML, SVG, CSS and so on. Instead XUL is a sort of
umbrella markup that glues everything together.
For some insight check out the slide titled "Rich
Client/Browser Architecture: Beyond Hairballs and
Spaghetti Code" from my VanX talk titled "The Future
of the Web: Rich Clients, Rich Browsers, Rich
Portals", for example, online @
http://luxor-xul.sourceforge.net/talk/vanx-mar-2003/slides.html#rich-4
If I may quote:
Why XHTML?
--> Rich (Styled) Hypelinked Text
Why XUL (XML User Interface Language)?
--> Rich Widget Set (such as menus, toolbars, forms,
datagrids, trees, and so on)
Why SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)?
--> Rich 2D Graphics (such as charts, maps, logos, and
so on)
Why XForms?
--> Form Data Submission (XML In, XML Out), Auto-Fill,
Pre-Fill, and more
Why CSS (Cascading Stylesheets)?
--> Visual Styling for XHTML, XUL and SVG
Why Python?
--> Scripting
Why XPath?
--> XML Tree Node Addressing
and so on and so forth
For those who don't get it what is outrageous about
XAML is not that it rips off XUL but the complete
disregard for any open royality-free standards such as
HTML, SVG, CSS, XForms and many more. Microsoft
clearly has zero-interest in building a rich internet
for everyone instead Microsoft wants it all for
themselves.
- Gerald
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
|
