Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> elharo@m... (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes:
> >The examples of XUL and XAML presented here both mix presentation
> >information directly with the markup. Neither is superior in this
> >regard. Thus, to the extent that CSS is directly embedded in the
> >structure here, for good or bad, XAML's syntax is more appropriate
> >than XUL's.
>
> I disagree. Even in the case of the style attribute, I'm happier to see
> presentation information segregated than I am to see "more appropriate"
> XML syntax.
The Petzold article at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/04/01/Avalon/default.aspx
is a good quick (and early; since this isn't going to be released
until 2006-ish, I'd expect major changes) look at XAML.
It looks like it does support a separation of style. Petzold:
----
You can also give a name to a particular style and apply that style only
to certain elements. For example, suppose a dialog box has a bunch of
radio buttons. You want some of these radio buttons to have a different
size, or color, or whatever. For those, you can assign a named Style:
<RadioButton Style="{Special}" ...>
In the following Style declarations, the first style applies to those
radio buttons that specify Style equal to "{Special}" and the second to
those radio buttons that don't set the Style property:
<FlowPanel.Resources>
<Style def:Name="Special">
<RadioButton .../>
</Style>
<Style>
<RadioButton .../>
</Style>
</FlowPanel.Resources
----
From what little I've looked at, I'd say that making comparisons to
HTML/CSS is misleading, because XAML is intended to do different things
than either of them. (For instance, CSS doesn't support declarative
animations and brushes, as XAML seems to.) And remember, too, that XAML
is meant to quickly and easily compile into .NET code.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
|
