Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yes, and the extensibility looks interesting. The whole transform bit is exactly how Goldfarb described these systems a decade ago, so this in some ways as Gates admits in his Longhorn interview at CNET.COM is a lot of old dreams coming to fruitiion. My favorite part of the article is where he says it is just an old Windows resource file. That is exactly what the U of Waterloo paper suggested, and exactly the inspiration for MID I. Sometimes, XML seems to lose track of the "markup is a verb, not a noun" adage. It is so obvious: look for anything with names, properties and values and tag it. This will be fun. We never got to the 'compile it' stage in the MID demos. It was interpreted, but even then, we knew the performance of that would [expletive deleted]. We weren't attempting to remake the operating system in the image of a browser; we were decoupling behaviors from presentation for IETMs. Turns out to be the same problem in either case. Now I wonder if this helps the "the web is stateless so one has to linearize" problems that turn performant QBE GUIs into lost-in-space wizards. If XAML is extensible, will business rules move back to the client? len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Kozlowski [mailto:mlk@k...] On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Michael Champion wrote: > On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 09:23 America/Detroit, Bullard, Claude L > (Len) wrote: > > It is the performance of the mush of different XML > > languages and objects that would make me wince. It gets compiled down. XAML is the source-code format, not the executable format. > > One > > has to ask, why do this in XML at all. > > I've been wondering that myself. Isn't the whole point of XML > portability (or interoperability) across platforms, at the price of > "bloated" data and "inefficient" performance? That's usually a good > tradeoff, but not if you stay in a proprietary box. That's a point of XML, but I don't know that it's the only one. If you were making a declarative, human-readable UI-description language, wouldn't you use XML even if you suspected that the only application to use it was your own resource compiler? Bloat and inefficiency aren't concerns here; developer/designer ease-of-use is. And if you add in the possibility of making XAML a target of XSLT transforms, or an output format of graphic design tools (apparently, Adobe demonstrated something like that at the PDC), you do get some exchange and interoperability, too.
|
