Hello,
Ron DeSerranno (lead developer of the Mobiform
Microsoft XUL (XAML) Browser for today's .Net) runs
some tell-it-like-it-is polls and writes some
hard-hitting editorals for the ZAML.com website that
sports the tagline "The Unofficial Web Site for XAML".
For example, a couple of weeks ago Ron polled XAML
Yahoo! Groups members by asking:
XAML is most likely to make which document format
or technology obsolete?
[ ] HTML
[ ] PDF
[ ] SWF (Flash)
[ ] Doc
In case you wonder about the poll results, I spare
you the effort to sign up:
HTML 4 votes (25%)
PDF 2 votes (12.5%)
SWF (Flash) 6 votes (37.5%)
Doc 4 votes (25%)
Now on to Ron's last week's SVG vs XAML editorial
titled "The Skinny - SVG Versus XAML".
Ron writes:
MOBIFORM Software is in the unique position of
having developed an SVG rendering engine with a full
SVGDOM and .NET code behind and we are knee deep now
in development of an XAML rendering engine with code
behind and an object model that mirrors the MSAvalon
namespace. This gives us a unique perspective on the
strengths and weaknesses of both formats and a feel
for the industry on both sides. Here’s the score.
Allow me to quote three SVG items and three XAML
items for a sampling about Ron's hard-hitting style:
SVG (minus 1 Point) – CSS (Cascading Style Sheets)
HELLO! The year 2000 has come and gone, why are we
still specking CSS? CSS is not XML based and has no
place in these modern markup languages. It should have
never happened….But I guess if you’re the W3C with a
history you’re to forced to right? What caused the
browser wars in the early and mid ‘90’s, different CSS
and script implementations resulting in different
behavior on different browsers. Should have used XSL
or something similar.
SVG (minus 4 Points) – Open Source Development
Community
Yes minus 4. The open source community, once again
has screwed a wonderful technology and prevented it
from achieving its full potential. All kinds of
do-gooders jump on the band wagon and produce mediocre
SVG libraries and rendering technology for free as
open source that is unsupported and only half works.
The projects never reach any serious degree of
sophistication and fall by the wayside. Any serious
developer knows that the copyright on a piece of open
source allows the owner to modify the licensing terms
from “free” to “pay me” at any time. A serious
software business would never, ever use open source,
any investor that did their due diligence wouldn’t
invest in a company that is relying on it either. The
SVG open source projects have prevented industry from
entering the playing field and developing world class
libraries and toolkits for SVG. This has dramatically
hindered SVG adoption leaving the door wide open for
XAML.
SVG (minus 2 Points) – Adobe SVG Controls(s)
Yes, Control(zzzzz). The SVG newsgroups are littered
with problems posted by SVG developers where SVG that
worked one way in ASV3 works a different way in ASV6.
It’s bad enough that ECMA and CSS are going to
re-create the browser wars in SVG, but to have
different implementations from the same company? Adobe
seriously dropped the ball, they had it made in the
shade with a huge install base with the SVG3 viewer.
Now with the behavioral differences between those
using 3 and 6, people will have a reason to move to
XAML. Also, ASV is not supported in stand alone
applications which hinders application development.
Now on to the Microsoft XAML world wonder:
XAML (plus 1 Point) – Not an Open Standard
Because it’s not an open standard, the XAML spec
will be able to grow at the pace of industry. The SVG
spec while a work of art (great job Chris and Dean!),
it was done by committee and is taking too long to
evolve. I believe it’s failing to keep up with the
pace of industry.
XAML (plus 2 Points) – Controls as First Class
Citizens
Built in controls are beautiful things. SVG 1.1 and
1.2 don’t seem to be consistent with XForms usage. 1.1
says use foreignobject and 1.2 use RCC. RCC is just a
pain in the butt and I'm not seeing any rush to adopt
it. All we want is a <button> I don’t want to have to
deal with RCC. SVG should have merged with XForms or
SVG should include basic controls. SVG is too painful
to work in for UI representation, XAML will prove
easier.
XAML (plus 1 Point) – ECMA
ECMA script is a limited language and is
interpreted. XAML has a clear advantage with a more
powerful development platform in the .NET languages
and CLR.
Ron concludes:
The Score: XAML – 14 vs. SVG – 8
Don't let the score led you to believe I prefer
XAML over SVG. Most of the XAML spec that deals with
shapes, brushes and stroke is based off it, so to say
you prefer XAML over SVG is a little silly.
Full story @
http://www.zaml.com/Editorials/Jan11-04.htm
- Gerald
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
xul-announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-announce
