[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
And XBL is YetOneMoreThingToLearn. It doesn't look hard, but the aggregation of all the small pieces increases the surface area enormously for an author. However one looks at the Microsoft approach, it is very easy to learn and apply. It's weird how much fuss gets raised over the WS-* specs, size, and complexity, but turn that lens on other communities and there is a silent acquiescence to the ever growing numbers of languages to be supported. So faced with that, proprietary is not only acceptable, it can be preferred. len From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@n...] > It doesn't need to scale to more than the number of languages that have > their own specific rendering needs that can't be expressed on top of > another language. yes and no, you can rely on a transformation language xslt (or xbl about which I know less) for rendering but the more you transform, the harder time you have with any interaction as you have to do the reverse transform (typically) to map user interaction with the layout pimitives back to your underlying elements. The amount of transformation that you are prepared to accept as reaonable is of course subjective. So opinions will differ as to whether such a solution is acceptable. Is it OK to map ChemML (or MathML) to SVG for example, given that SVG can lay text at specific coordinates pretty much any layout form could in principle be rendered that way but you might (or might not) lose something along the way.
|
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
|