Hello, Jon Udell has written up a blog story that compares MXML/Flex and XAML/Avalon side-by-side.
Jon writes: It's interesting to consider these two admirably compact implementations side-by-side. Some points of comparison: MXML XAML Here today 2006? 2007? Runs anywhere Flash Player 7 runs Runs only on Longhorn Server required Server not required Uses ActionScript 2.0 Uses .NET languages XPath support: no XPath support: yes CSS support: yes CSS support: no This mixed pattern of green (good) and red (bad) pretty much sums up my conclusion. I want all the green stuff in one column. Actually, I want all the green stuff in multiple columns: Flash, Mozilla, .NET. Heck, if I want to write a tool for Groove 3.0, I should be able to use the same XML-based UI definitions, objects, and events as I can use everywhere else. At this level of abstraction, all this stuff is too similar to justify the differences. We had a great thing going for about 10 years: the universal HTML/JavaScript client. And while it's still a great thing, there are good reasons to advance the state of the art. But can we please, please not lose the standardization that's served us so well? Full story @ http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2004/03/31.html What's your thought? Is a next-gen browser using rich markup languages such as XUL, SVG, and so on a pipe dream? - Gerald ------------------- Gerald Bauer Open XUL Alliance - A Rich Internet For Everyone | http://xul.sourceforge.net XUL News Wire | http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.xul.announce ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
