In reply to Arron's comments (umm, in reply to Marc's comments replying to Arron's comments, replying to Marc's comments--did I get that right???):
> ... I think XUL in itself is not addressing the whole need. Yes, we need an XML-based UI, yes we need an API to do this in, but we also need a framework that will support all of the rest of things for that application as well. Yes! I completely concur. > ... I think that the only thing M$ has brought to the table is the idea that a XUL needs to be supported in a larger context. But this is exactly what they are NOT doing. After making several blog entries (www.myxaml.com/marcclifton) critical of XAML, the response from the Avalon architects is that XAML is a specific solution with specific compromises for a specific set of classes. MS had the world, but they're blowing it! > ... I don't know, maybe the next step is an XML programming language that transparently ties all programming platforms together so that you never know if it's compiled down to C++, C#, Java, whatever. Definitely a first step would be to tie XUL/XBL in with Gnome an SVG lib and see where it goes from there. Then add an XML programming language and ... Hehe. The XGUT (Xml Grand Unification Theory). However, how do you keep such a thing current so that it supports the next cool technology? 3D displays. Surround sound? The next programming language? The burgeoning migration to handheld devices that are growing more powerful every day? Webservices and web integration? And more importantly, since everyone is jumping on the XML bandwagon, how do you unify all the different schemas that are going to be popping left and right? Every vendor, heck, every developer, will shortly have their own schema/markup to provide an XML solution for their corner of the world. It's an impossible situation, IMHO, with no solution. So, what do we do, when "the whole need" is a constantly moving (and at high speed) target? Not to sounds like a broken record, but that's why MyXaml is cool. It isn't a fixed markup syntax, since it's based on the namespaces, classes, and property names of whatever assembly you plug into it. Technically (until MS breaks reflection or makes obfuscation so that you can't reflect an assembly), the parser can handle anything written in the .NET framework as long as it complies with a few parser friendly rules (http://www.myxaml.com/whitePapers/xamlfriendly.htm). To bring this point to clarity, I can add markup that instantiates the vector graphic engine written by the good people at www.vgdotnet.com directly in MyXaml. I'll be demonstrating this in a week or so. Marc ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
