Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
> >Why is it a good thing if the XULies do it and
> >a bad thing if MS does it? Neither invented it
> >so the "copied XUL" arguments are horsefeathers.
>
> I'm more annoyed about the copied XHTML+SVG+XForms+whatever else you'd
> like to put in the stew. XUL is the least of it to me. The part that
> matters is that they appear to be reinventing for the sole reason of
> making it theirs, proprietary, kicking out the NIH.
No, not really. Don Box on his blog (http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/dbox/)
says:
XAML is just an XML-based way to wire up CLR types - no more no less.
Given the appropriate namespace decls, the following is legal (albeit
useless) XAML:
<Object def:Class="MyClass" />
which is equivalent to the following C# fragment:
public partial class MyClass : System.Object {}
XAML is domain-neutral, so while it may be used to create desktop
apps, web pages, and printable documents, it could also be used to
create CRM apps, blogging backends, or highly concurrent web services
provided you had a supporting CLR-based library to do the heavy
lifting.
That's really nothing like XHTML, XForms, or SVG; and I don't see a
straightforward way to adapt those technologies to Microsoft's purpose.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
|
