[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And we already have that as WinForms, XUL, etc.
When we use WinForms, we get a richer client with a lot
more control support. If we use webForms, we get better
or more concise properties. Any MS developer using VisualStudio.Net
has to make a decision about that going into a project.
WebForms are compatible with HTML and sit in their own
namespace (asp:listbox, for example). Or one develops
entirely in HTML. This works well although the
new developer still has to sort out the runat dilemmas
(eg, how useful is showModalDialog in a mixed environment?
answer: not very).
Under XAML, one can use the Avalon objects which are rich,
or develop their own thus having a straightforward way to
extend the framework with domain objects that someone else
can then use to author. In environments such as the one
we sell to with lots of customization and local extensibility,
XAML will be close to ideal. Today, we play a lot of tricks
with metadata tables and XSLT. XAML will be much more
straightforward. One gets the advantages of the custom
controls PLUS an XML-analog to other objects. This is
what we were designing for the MID in 1993/94. It is a
natural evolution.
I see it as the emergence of more sophisticated clients. HTML
only goes so far, then one is inserting Active-X objects.
XAML makes sense to me. A competitor to HTML is overdue.
len
(clipped the CC to save the inboxes)
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
I have to say that Gerald is right; it's a direct competitor to HTML and to
XUL. However the main target is not to create document per se but rich
client applications with all the characteristics of web applications. The
biggest impact will be on those who promoted the fat server/light client or
in other word, the reincarnation of the mainframe paradigm.
|
