[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: What is XAML? A technique? A language? Both? XML# or XML++

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: RE: What is XAML? A technique? A language? Both? XML# or XML++?
• From: sterling <sstouden@t...>
• Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 06:48:52 -0600 (CST)
• Cc: "'martind@n...'" <martind@n...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE072068EC@h...>

How did microsoft get on this list?


On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> And we already have that as WinForms, XUL, etc.
> 
> When we use WinForms, we get a richer client with a lot 
> more control support.  If we use webForms, we get better 
> or more concise properties.  Any MS developer using VisualStudio.Net 
> has to make a decision about that going into a project.  
> WebForms are compatible with HTML and sit in their own 
> namespace (asp:listbox, for example).  Or one develops 
> entirely in HTML.   This works well although the 
> new developer still has to sort out the runat dilemmas 
> (eg, how useful is showModalDialog in a mixed environment? 
> answer:  not very).
> 
> Under XAML, one can use the Avalon objects which are rich, 
> or develop their own thus having a straightforward way to 
> extend the framework with domain objects that someone else 
> can then use to author.  In environments such as the one 
> we sell to with lots of customization and local extensibility, 
> XAML will be close to ideal.  Today, we play a lot of tricks 
> with metadata tables and XSLT.  XAML will be much more 
> straightforward.  One gets the advantages of the custom 
> controls PLUS an XML-analog to other objects.   This is 
> what we were designing for the MID in 1993/94.  It is a 
> natural evolution.
> 
> I see it as the emergence of more sophisticated clients.  HTML 
> only goes so far, then one is inserting Active-X objects.  
> XAML makes sense to me.  A competitor to HTML is overdue.
> 
> len
> 
> (clipped the CC to save the inboxes)
> 
> 
> From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@n...]
> 
> 
> I have to say that Gerald is right; it's a direct competitor to HTML and to
> XUL. However the main target is not to create document per se but rich
> client applications with all the characteristics of web applications. The
> biggest impact will be on those who promoted the fat server/light client or
> in other word, the reincarnation of the mainframe paradigm.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 

• References:
  • RE: What is XAML? A technique? A language? Both? XML# or XML++?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Hello XQuery ... Goodbye XSLT?
• Next by Date: Re: Hello XQuery ... Goodbye XSLT?
• Previous by thread: RE: What is XAML? A technique? A language? Both? XML# or XML++?
• Next by thread: Meta-validation Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread