Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'm sure that you and others are highly impressed by
what MS did achieve in the last 20 or so years, but I
was rather impressed by the recent "meta-discussions"
about XML and now I am really annoyed by having that
high a level of discussion on and questioning of XML
and related technologies, destroyed and occluded by
your XAML initiative.
How about discussing that rather specific theme on the
appropriate MS and other softie's mailing lists and
not on the ever so general and sometimes meta-physical
XML mailing list?
Or are you afraid that people start questioning
so-called achievements by the industry - eventually
coming to terms that XML is not everything. In fact,
XML is just nothing, it even puts us back to
pre-relational times, when we had plain-text files to
I'd rather have that sort of discussion here, and I am
only a quiet observer for sometime, as having a
"party-rallying" for MS technologies, that haven't
been invented by them in the first place. Sorry for
bashing, but it has to be said that XUL was there and
is, and XAML has yet to show it's full potential and
that is actually is working correctly and stable.
Besides, I recently had a look at MS .com website and
found that they do not even use ASP.net, even after
them having revamped their website, or was it because
I was using Mozilla and ASP.net does not produce
our own dog-food?
So, why don't you just ask your questions on XML
rather than destroying valuable and creative
discussions on behalf of XML, by throwing in some
semi-discussion/question on XUL, eh I mean an XML
derivative and proprietary language called XAML?
Thanks for leaving us with the higher and lower ethics
of XML and the languages associated with it, their
potentials and obvious failures in terms of
specifications, re-usability, abstractability, and
whatever there is more to language and the culture
associated with it.
--- Gerald Bauer <email@example.com> schrieb:
> Hello Sergio,
> >> * I do not say MyXaml is a language but rather a
> > In other words: XAML is a XML Application not a
> > Vocabulary, because it needs some special
> > when parsing the XML document..., is this right?
> First, to clarify the statement about MyXAML is
> mine but from Marc Clifton.
> The new cleaned-up XAML Microsoft is working on
> will be like MyXAML a domain-neutral format
> with plain vanilla XML. XAML is neither a XML
> application nor a XML vocabulary. XAML is a sort of
> XML# or XML++ like XML is a sort of SGML--. To use
> XAML like XML you need a parser e.g instead of using
> XML parser you now need to use a XAML parser that
> supports compound syntax, binding syntax, styling
> syntax, etc.
> Microsoft's upcoming markup languages competing
> with HTML, SVG, XSL-FO, etc. will not be XML
> applications or XML vocabularies but XAML
> or XAML vocabularies.
> - Gerald
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de