[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That
is a better story.
With
all of the web interoperability groups floating around, having a Mozilla-only
feature would be
a
giant step backwards. XAML provides objectified XML and MS gets
regularly pummeled for it because
'it
ain't XUL' but 'XUL ain't MID' and yadda yadda yadda. More Spy vs Spy
arguments about who has the
biggest ... standard. At the end of the day, it comes down to
who has the most desktop share so the
greatest probability of interoperation. Systems interoperate.
Content is portable. Or not. My concern
will
be variant implementations of a feature if it doesn't do more than make it
easier to write a script. The
surface area of the system increases by adding a large feature without
removing any, thus exposing the
overall system of systems to more failure modes.
Would you say
objectification is more than a notation convenience? If so,
how?
After
that, my next question would be what effect it has once naive script builders
put increasing amounts
of
content directly into the script. I know it can be done without doing
that.
len
Actually IE will possibly have
support for E4X in IE7, and Netscape is planning on having E4X support
extensively (I can attest to this one personally).
I personally see it
of more interest internally - E4X will be used within the Mozilla-based
browsers at the XUL level before it makes its way to the web browser pane in
general usage. At that level the ability to work with objectified XML makes a
great deal more sense, and you have a guarantee of support there that you
won't for several years within the web page dev community.
| 