Hello Dominic, > My only concern, and this is a big one, is > that I feel that XML is inappropriate for scripting > (which is essentially > what we are talking about when it comes to building > user interfaces).
I think you're mixing up some concepts here. I agree that XML is not appropriate for scripting. Note, however, that XML UI languages don't replace scripting. In contrast like Ying & Yang, Adam & Eve or HTML & JavaScript, XML UI languages and scripting languages depend on each other. See http://xul.sourceforge.net/talk/mtd-may-2004/slides.html#xul-7 for the big picture. > I really believe that XUL would be much better off > if it lost the X and was > just a browser interpretable scripting language > (JavaScript?) which was used > for describing user interfaces. Well, you can use Java or C# or whatever today to describe your user interfaces. Or you can use Python, Ruby, etc. The point of XML UI languages is to follow the HTML model of separation of concerns, that is, use different languages for styling, structure, behavior and so on instead of a magic all-in-one (scripting) language. - Gerald --------------------------- Gerald Bauer Rich Client Conference (RichCon) 2005 - http://richcon.com XUL News Wire - http://xulnews.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
