Lists Home |
Date Index |
The syntax is irrelevant. It is the application type. XAML
moves away from a common assumption On The Web: that of the
browser being the guaranteed client. I'm not against that
development either. It was predictable.
Again, not bashing XAML or MS, Dare. I'm trying to follow these
developments to logical ends. XAML is a MID Redux but XAML has much
more clarity about the object-oriented implementation. So is XUL.
I'm a fan. It will be very cool. XAML is also a part of Longhorn
that is least likely most well-cooked at this time. So far,
Regards the binary discussion. In the case of X3D, there will
be one binary for the standard. That's ideal. In the case of XAML, XUL,
whatever, there won't be a standard for some time if any,
so multiple binaries for a given application type will happen.
Again, not unpredictable, yet nor are some consequences.
Michael's position is that these
are tightly-coupled so it won't affect interop in the
horizontal dimension, meaning, we won't be sending XAML
over the wire in the way we do HTML and expect any given
platform to play it. It's vertical. So far, so good.
The only hitch would be an agenda to make XAML the
de facto standard for rich client applications over
the wire. Now we have it and BAML and the market
place just narrowed. That is speculative, I grant
you, and competition is healthy, but since a de facto
standard for rich clients won't be accepted by the
competitors, balkanization will happen and interop
in the horizontal dimension will suffer.
What I would dearly love to see is MS and its competition
come to the standards table before this happens and not
afterwards. It will save us all a lot of pain. I accept
that the developers aren't ready for that because they
are going up a design curve I've been up before and know
from what I read on their blogs that they aren't to the
top of it yet. No problem. Others will wait.
I understand the positions. I am pessimistic they
will stay vertical. There are certain effects that
o ASPs will have to be monocultures. Bad for the CRM
o The development and sales of high powered graphics
boards (game engines) will prosper as they never have.
o 3D graphics gets a nudge in the positive axis (yea!).
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I've mentioned this offlist before and I'll mention on XML-DEV now. If you
have issues with XAML, various people on the Avalon team have made
themselves available for public comment via their weblogs. Neither myself
nor Michael Rys work in close concert with the Avalon team so speculating on
the future directions of the various formats they use isn't a fruitful
excercise. if you have questions about XAML tag Rob Relyea on his blog or
Filipe Fortes or Chris Anderson or send them an email.
Based on the amount of hubub around XAML simply because it's syntax is XML
based I'm beginning to think it was a bad idea for them not to have chosen a
different syntax. The irony is that it originally wasn't an XML-based syntax
and it was feedback from the various XML teams at Microsoft that made them
reconsider their position only for every person with a vested interest in
XML-based markup languages for user interface description to use
XAML-bashing to further their agenda.