XAML is the technology that hooks the XML to the "application" (aka business object).
When you click on a anchor tag, do you have to write the code to open the link? Nope, the rendering engine knows what a click on an anchor tag means. This is why this is called declarative code and not procedureal code. The idea behind things like XAML is to abstract out all the hard coding from the average person, so that an average person (aka non-developer) can build applications without having to write procedural code. Think about how many people that can write HTML, that have no clue how to write HTML objects. As for where does the code sit with XAML, since it is a Windows Client only thing, it sits on the client. How do you distribute XAML apps, well you can distribute them via a network (intra or internet), or good old fashion installs. One of the things you will start to see out of the MSFT folks is the whole concept of compiling down declarative code to IL (see the new XSLT engine in .Net 2.0 and XQuery in SQL Server 2005). The problem with the SVG+SPARK comparison to Avalon and XAML is that XAML is dependent on a VM (.Net), where SVG+SPARK does not have a fully functional VM (Ecmascript is not a VM, or even a framework, it is just a scripting language). If you truly want an open source competitor of XAML, you will need to build it on .Net, Java or Mono (maybe there is another VM that I'm missing?) Don On 6/21/05, Alastair Fettes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ron. > > > > it would still be a procedural paradigm. > > > > Hmmm. Nope.... as declarative as XForms and SVG, no different. > > So if you don't need C#, then what happens when you click on that > button? What hooks it to the application? What is the application > code written in? Where does the application code sit? Does the > application code sit on the server? If so, does that app code work > with anything other than IIS? > > After looking at this blog (http://www.xamlblogs.com/) it seems to me > like XAML is just an expensive version of SPARK? The SPARK project > new motto: "SVG+SPARK - an open source alternative to XAML". ;p > > Alastair > > > --- In svg-developers@yahoogroups.com, "mobiform" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Great comments! Some clarifications > > > > > > > XAML on the other hand would use XML mark-up to create an Avalon- > > based input > > > box, initialise it with values, give it styling, and so on. But > > despite the > > > angle brackets, it would still be a procedural paradigm. (And need > > to be > > > converted to C#.) > > > > > > XAML is not converted into C#. It is converted directly into IL and > > binary native to the platform it is sitting on via reflection. > > > > > > > > > it would still be a procedural paradigm. > > > > Hmmm. Nope.... as declarative as XForms and SVG, no different. > > > > > > Ron > > > > > ----- > To unsubscribe send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -or- > visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and > click "edit my membership" > ---- > > > ________________________________ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
