Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: Why can't we all work together? XML UI Languages Aboun
 Good summary, Bob. I know that IE is a fat application but it takes the place of multiple fat clients, so it thins the desktop. XAML etc, enable the developer to fatten or thin at their own discretion. This opens up the competition. You also astutely note that surrendering to the browserIsKing architecture made it possible for MS to dominate. Netscape and others simply did not believe that their technology would be that easy to duplicate then best. They bet against XML. They were wrong on both counts. They lost. Now it is a battle of frameworks and the web is standard network plumbing. That puts us back in circa 1990 as far as innovative thinking goes. This means choices for developers, but what does it mean for their customers? Is it MAC86 withhout the rigorous MAC rules for building clients that ensured a common look and feel? The rich client define the ecosystem of the application domain niche whose rules and conventions they encapsulate. That frees up the developer to take initiative but it also makes the developer responsible for creating an experience appropriate to the user rather than defaulting to the lowest common denominators that browsing provides. It means that the developer has to learn or relearn how to load balance between the local machine and the server machine wherever these are different. It means the REST architecture is not the whole of the law (XAML enables non-URI object addressing). The more interesting bit about XAML is the extensibility of the language by adding objects. This is exciting and maybe perilous. len From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@w...] Claude L Bullard wrote: > Why would one want to use a fat client on the web? > Are these really fat clients? Virtually *everyone* uses a "fat client" everytime they access the Web. What the heck do you think Internet Explorer is? Are you suggesting that it is "thin?" (No, it's one of the "fattest" clients you can find...) The question isn't whether something is fat or thin. The more interesting thing to look at is what, if anything, causes people to be uncomfortable about having more than a one or a small number of fat clients on their desktops. Well, it turns out that fat clients typically impose their own view of integration patterns, UI standards, keyboard conventions, storage locations, etc. Fat clients are law-makers... They are much more than "big" or "hard to install." Fat clients are powerful in their effect on the eco-system of the desktop. They define their environment rather than simply accept what is there. This is the root of many of the "problems" that we have on the desktop today and it is a source of much of the power that has been given to Microsoft. Given the "law giver" role of fat clients, the "thin client" proponents basically give up control of the desktop to the fat client builders (Microsoft, etc.) when they argue for thin clients. By arguing against fat clients, you take yourself out of the collection of people who might build or influence a law-giver. By doing so, you empower those who build fat clients. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
