Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
Tim Bray writes: > At 11:41 AM 27/02/01 -0500, David Megginson wrote: > > >I think that client-side XML failed simply because it didn't fill a > >big enough real need (HTML 4 is close enough) > > I have a problem with your verb tense. The web is still too slow. > Fatter pipes aren't going to help. The only way to make it fast > is to do some of the work on the (severely underemployed, these > days) client, and the only way to do that is to send some useful > data there to get chewed on. So I think client-side XML just > hasn't got going yet. To say it had failed, it would be > necessary for it to have been tried. -Tim Browsers that support XML + stylesheets (especially CSS) are available on millions of desktops, both in the closed source world (MSIE) and in the open-source world (Mozilla), and have been for a couple of years. We can debate about particulars -- MSIE's support for XSL was pathetic for a long time, Mozilla took its time making its DOM stable, etc. -- but that's splitting hairs: most specs' backers would have been grateful for a tiny fraction of the exposure and implementation that browser-side XML has already had. If it's not flying yet, it's probably not going to. Note, however, that I have shifted from the phrase "client-side XML" to the phrase "browser-side XML". In fact, I do agree that data-oriented XML (SOAP, RDF, or what-have-you) makes an awful lot of sense for non-browser client-side applications, and my original choice of words was a little misleading. All the best, David -- David Megginson david@m... http://www.megginson.com/
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format