From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2003-10-31T10:39:49-08:00
Subject: Re: [Q] Ruby and XUL?



James Britt (jamesUNDERBARb@seemyemail.com) wrote:

> You may want to scope out the discussion about XUL and XAML (Microsoft's=
=20
> XML-GUI language) on the xml-dev mailing list [0].
>=20
> I found these comments particularly interesting:
>=20
> "Hmm. To me it looks like XAML is considerably better designed than XUL.=
=20
> This is very much like the difference between SVG and XSL-FO that I=20
> wrote about in Item 11 of Effective XML, Make structure explicit through=
=20
> markup. XUL is using a double syntax with embedded CSS. The syntax=20
> should be XML, even if the semantics come from CSS. XAML and XSL-FO get=
=20
> this right. XUL and SVG get this wrong. I've now put that chapter=20
> online: http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml/chapters/11.html"
>   -- Elliotte Rusty Harold

A benefit of XUL is that it is similar enough to HTML that anybody who
has written a web page can probably understand a XUL page.

XAML isn't XML as a user interface, it is a definition for a UI that
is then compiled.  This requires the web-savvy to learn new ways of
thinking.

XAML isn't targetting the web-savvy, its targetting the .NET-savvy.
XUL is targetting the web-savvy, with XML, DOM, and CSS all available
at runtime.  XAML will have its own implementation of the same
functionality that will be easily digestible by someone familiar with
=2ENET.

> "I expect to see XML based languages like perhaps XUL to
> be included in gnome or KDE. However, if Gnome and KDE use the same
> language as Microsoft, the impact would even be greater and would
> probably put some W3C technologies out of the picture. Strategically,
> both KDE and Gnome should also 'embrace and expand' to gain some market
> share. I doubt they will do it since the will to win is less strong than
> the will to 'be against the devil empire'. Nonetheless, if by some luck,
> leaders of these communities learned some strategic tricks and want to
> win some market share, the 'embrace and expand' strategy can potentially
> transform the web as we know it. "
>   -- Didier PH Martin

If you want to capture programmers who are web app writers, it would
make more sense to use XUL, because it uses many technologies that
web app writers are familiar with.  In either case, building a UI out of
XML makes sense, because so many people are familiar with HTML, but XAML
may find itself much harder to sell if it isn't familar to the
web-centric.

http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/archive/2003/10/29/ was a basis for
this email.

--=20
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
All messages signed with fingerprint:
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E  7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/oqx1MypVHHlsnwQRAvclAKDnfqhQD9cWDdZ7sxdcxKL5pU5yGwCfdT+8
kVlcTvsHcUdoF+LYCrLtlbI=
=lijN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----