From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2003-11-01T04:00:23+09:00
Subject: Re: [Q] Ruby and XUL?

Eric Hodel wrote:
> 
> 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'm not so familiar with either to say which would be the better choice 
for any set of problems, but I'm skeptical of picking a technology 
because it's easier for a class of potential users to get started. 
(Some cursory review of XAML suggests that those familar with more 
traditonal application GUI design may find it fairly easy, as the 
elements appear to map to abstract widgets.)

Better to see which GUI markup offers the best design and "bang for the 
buck" for the long run, after the learning curve is forgotten.

Whether such a tool for Ruby should be selected for its appeal to the 
"web savvy" is a different matter.


James Britt