Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Not exactly. Some frameworks are evolving to make using the classic HTML browser (ie, HTML as the host language of a universal intergace) less necessary. It is much cooler. I also said, if we want to use the term "web browser", that term becomes less descriptive of a specific platform and becomes more a watered down way to say, "web aware because it can use the operating system web services without using a line of HTML". len -----Original Message----- From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] > I have been carefully saying "HTML Browser". A > client can be web-aware and XML-capable and > never touch HTML. So we agree. A dedicated > client may not be browsing; it may be processing > only that XML that it cares about. My position > is that, and I did say this, that what we > call a web browser could change. In that sense, > any client on the system can be web aware and > can still be smart. So when you said "the broswer lost", you meant "the browser evolved"? I know that's less cool sounding, but saying so up front would have saved us all a lot of talking past each other.
|
