XAML is Emerging 6

Ryan Dawson writes at his Longhorn Blog about XAML.

If you don’t know what XAML is you should read Ryan Dawson’s entry first.

XAML is Microsofts version of XUL. I like XUL but without the installation base it is not a viable alternative to using DHTML for creating zero footprint rich client web application.

For now I just have a few comments about this but I’m sure once the PDC starts there will be plenty of things to say about XAML, Avalon and the other upcoming Longhorn technologies.

XAML is one of the things I’ve been waiting for for the last couple of years. I just wonder how good CSS, DOM and what-not support the rendering engine will have? Will it also handle general XML+CSS (XHTML)?

Will this really replace IE? I’m not sure. Sometimes I think MS is going to keep IE in its infancy so that people are forced over to XAML applications for web apps (most people do want to replace their web apps with XAML anyway) and sticking to IE for normal web pages.

Another question that I see with this is how similar XAML will be to XUL. In a perfect world there would be standard for defining UIs with XML. In reality I think it is more realistic to transform the XAML into XUL (or the other way around) and use a ECMAScript 3 wrapper where needed.

Well, the coming week will be extreemly interesting. I just wish I could be there.

  • http://xul.sourceforge.net Gerald Bauer

    > I like XUL but without the installation base it is
    > not a viable alternative to using DHTML

    You might wonna check out some alternative XUL engines/browsers/runtimes such as the Luxor XUL toolkit for example online @ http://luxor-xul.sourceforge.net to get some ideas on how to pump up the installation base.

    > In a perfect world there would be standard for
    > defining UIs with XML.

    Your wish has come true join the XUL Alliance today online @ http://xul.sourceforge.net

  • http://erik.eae.net Erik Arvidsson

    I had forgot about the XUL Alliance. Still, I would not call this a standard. Its a SF project and I haven’t heard of any major player backing this up (except maybe Luxor but currently there is only one major XUL player).

    Using Java will not /pump/ the installation base because Java requires a plugin and plugins are not allowed by most customers. If plugins were accepted I would install Mozilla and the Mozilla ActiveX control. In that way one is guaranteed that it works in both. This cannot be said about Lucor which isn’t compatible with Mozilla.

  • http://erik.eae.net Erik Arvidsson

    On the same topic, see Eric Meyer’s comments at http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/200310.html#t200310024

  • Phishon

    Erik,

    I believe XAML is a direct replacement for current GUI solutions on the web. Such as your own Bindows and DOMAPI.

    That said, doesn’t it bother you that all your hard work will soon become useless? Especially considering how Bindows is already IEWin only and will definitely offer no advantage in the cross-browser area.

  • http://www.joehewitt.com Joe Hewitt

    XAML doesn’t “support” or “extend” CSS, HTML, XUL, DOM, or SVG, it “replaces” them. XAML has all of the features of these languages in a single, incompatible language. This will probably piss a lot of people off, but in my opinion it could be a good thing.

  • http://html.xamjwg.org Jose

    >> I like XUL but without the installation base it is
    >> not a viable alternative to using DHTML

    >You might wonna check out some alternative XUL engines/browsers/runtimes such as >the Luxor XUL toolkit for example online @ http://luxor-xul.sourceforge.net to get >some ideas on how to pump up the installation base.

    Not to mention XAMJ http://html.xamjwg.org which
    is a project we recently announced.

    –Jose