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

RE: Why I Like Longhorn and XAML

• To: 'Mike Kozlowski' <mlk@k...>
• Subject: RE: Why I Like Longhorn and XAML
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:41:36 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Yes.  Some keep overlooking the parts of the articles 
that say element IS-A class.  When one considers how 
often the 'type' debates have gone on here, it is a 
relief to see that being implemented.

Finally, a real extensible ML.  About time.

len


From: Mike Kozlowski [mailto:mlk@k...]

No, not really.  Don Box on his blog (http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/dbox/)
says:

   XAML is just an XML-based way to wire up CLR types - no more no less.
   Given the appropriate namespace decls, the following is legal (albeit
   useless) XAML:

   <Object def:Class="MyClass" />

   which is equivalent to the following C# fragment:

   public partial class MyClass : System.Object {}

   XAML is domain-neutral, so while it may be used to create desktop
   apps, web pages, and printable documents, it could also be used to
   create CRM apps, blogging backends, or highly concurrent web services
   provided you had a supporting CLR-based library to do the heavy
   lifting.

That's really nothing like XHTML, XForms, or SVG; and I don't see a
straightforward way to adapt those technologies to Microsoft's purpose.

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Training and Certification
• Next by Date: RE: Why I Like Longhorn and XAML
• Previous by thread: RE: Why I Like Longhorn and XAML
• Next by thread: RE: Why I Like Longhorn and XAML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread