OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] RE: Why can't we all work together? XML UI Languages Aboun

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Good summary, Bob.  I know that IE is a fat application but 
it takes the place of multiple fat clients, so it thins the 
desktop.  XAML etc, enable the developer to fatten or thin 
at their own discretion.  This opens up the competition.

You also astutely note that surrendering to the browserIsKing 
architecture made it possible for MS to dominate. Netscape 
and others simply did not believe that their technology would 
be that easy to duplicate then best.   They bet against XML. 
They were wrong on both counts.  They lost.

Now it is a battle of frameworks and the web is standard network 
plumbing.  That puts us back in circa 1990 as far as innovative 
thinking goes.  This means choices for developers, but what 
does it mean for their customers?  Is it MAC86 withhout the 
rigorous MAC rules for building clients that ensured a common 
look and feel?

The rich client define the ecosystem of the application domain niche whose 
rules and conventions they encapsulate.  That frees up the 
developer to take initiative but it also makes the developer 
responsible for creating an experience appropriate to the user 
rather than defaulting to the lowest common denominators that 
browsing provides.

It means that the developer has to learn or relearn how to load 
balance between the local machine and the server machine wherever
these are different.  It means the REST architecture is not the 
whole of the law (XAML enables non-URI object addressing).

The more interesting bit about XAML is the extensibility of the 
language by adding objects.  This is exciting and maybe perilous.


From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us]

Claude L Bullard wrote:
> Why would one want to use a fat client on the web?
> Are these really fat clients?
	Virtually *everyone* uses a "fat client" everytime they access
the Web. What the heck do you think Internet Explorer is? Are you
suggesting that it is "thin?" (No, it's one of the "fattest" clients
you can find...)
	The question isn't whether something is fat or thin. The more
interesting thing to look at is what, if anything, causes people to be
uncomfortable about having more than a one or a small number of fat
clients on their desktops. Well, it turns out that fat clients
typically impose their own view of integration patterns, UI standards,
keyboard conventions, storage locations, etc. Fat clients are
law-makers... They are much more than "big" or "hard to install." Fat
clients are powerful in their effect on the eco-system of the desktop.
They define their environment rather than simply accept what is there.
This is the root of many of the "problems" that we have on the desktop
today and it is a source of much of the power that has been given to
	Given the "law giver" role of fat clients, the "thin client"
proponents basically give up control of the desktop to the fat client
builders (Microsoft, etc.) when they argue for thin clients. By
arguing against fat clients, you take yourself out of the collection
of people who might build or influence a law-giver. By doing so, you
empower those who build fat clients.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS