Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Micros
 The syntax is irrelevant. It is the application type. XAML moves away from a common assumption On The Web: that of the browser being the guaranteed client. I'm not against that development either. It was predictable. Again, not bashing XAML or MS, Dare. I'm trying to follow these developments to logical ends. XAML is a MID Redux but XAML has much more clarity about the object-oriented implementation. So is XUL. I'm a fan. It will be very cool. XAML is also a part of Longhorn that is least likely most well-cooked at this time. So far, so good. Regards the binary discussion. In the case of X3D, there will be one binary for the standard. That's ideal. In the case of XAML, XUL, whatever, there won't be a standard for some time if any, so multiple binaries for a given application type will happen. Again, not unpredictable, yet nor are some consequences. Michael's position is that these are tightly-coupled so it won't affect interop in the horizontal dimension, meaning, we won't be sending XAML over the wire in the way we do HTML and expect any given platform to play it. It's vertical. So far, so good. The only hitch would be an agenda to make XAML the de facto standard for rich client applications over the wire. Now we have it and BAML and the market place just narrowed. That is speculative, I grant you, and competition is healthy, but since a de facto standard for rich clients won't be accepted by the competitors, balkanization will happen and interop in the horizontal dimension will suffer. What I would dearly love to see is MS and its competition come to the standards table before this happens and not afterwards. It will save us all a lot of pain. I accept that the developers aren't ready for that because they are going up a design curve I've been up before and know from what I read on their blogs that they aren't to the top of it yet. No problem. Others will wait. I understand the positions. I am pessimistic they will stay vertical. There are certain effects that are likely: o ASPs will have to be monocultures. Bad for the CRM market. o The development and sales of high powered graphics boards (game engines) will prosper as they never have. o 3D graphics gets a nudge in the positive axis (yea!). len From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...] I've mentioned this offlist before and I'll mention on XML-DEV now. If you have issues with XAML, various people on the Avalon team have made themselves available for public comment via their weblogs. Neither myself nor Michael Rys work in close concert with the Avalon team so speculating on the future directions of the various formats they use isn't a fruitful excercise. if you have questions about XAML tag Rob Relyea on his blog or Filipe Fortes or Chris Anderson or send them an email. Based on the amount of hubub around XAML simply because it's syntax is XML based I'm beginning to think it was a bad idea for them not to have chosen a different syntax. The irony is that it originally wasn't an XML-based syntax and it was feedback from the various XML teams at Microsoft that made them reconsider their position only for every person with a vested interest in XML-based markup languages for user interface description to use XAML-bashing to further their agenda. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
