Re: Kurt Cagle Comments on Microsoft and XAML

Honestly, I think you guys are doomed anyhow unless you come up with 
something multi-platform that is more credible than client-side Java. 
Mozilla XUL looks dead but still the most promising idea, add Blackwood 
to it and you'd have something.  Make the active-x control for IE work 
and come up with good bindings to JSF and hopefully things that don't 
suck like JSF and you'd own the day.  Until then, y'all are interesting 
but not credible to be honest. Applets are so 1997-8

Arron Ferguson wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] wrote: -----
> From: Matthew Raymond <[email protected]>
> 
>>>Problem is, his suggestion of getting the opposition going on this
>>>doesn't seem likely (I'm assuming he's referring to the Open Source
>>>community). Everybody's too busy going their own way. Having said
> 
> that,
> 
>>>that's probably the strength for the current Web: it's a total
>>>hodge-podge of many technologies, many organizations, many companies
> 
> and
> 
>>>many developers.
> 
> 
>>   First of all, I think you miss his point. He's saying that
>>opposition would be more likely to develop critical mass if Microsoft
>>announces a real release date for XAML. The lack of focus on a
> 
> specific
> 
>>standard is in part a belief that XAML's release is still way off in
> 
> the
> 
>>distance. If there was a hard release date, people would start looking
>>where that fits into their own development schedules and realize that
>>they don't have nearly as much time as they thought they did.
> 
> 
> You're right. After re-reading this I missed the boat on this point.
> Maybe
> That's what we all need is a solid date to light a fire under our
> behinds.
> 
> 
>>   As for a hodge-podge of standards, I really don't see that. There
>>may be some diversity in some areas, but the most successful
>>technologies on the web (HTTP, HTML, DOM, ECMAscript, CSS) are based
> 
> on
> 
>>open standards developed by several web standards organizations.
> 
> 
> Yes, HTTP, DOM, CSS and JavaScript yes. HTML is a hard target to hit
> since you may still be expecting old bastardized HTML from the
> Netscape/IE war days or you may be saying strict XHTML instead.
> 
> Even if you stick with say XHTML I have yet to see a complex page in
> XHTML look the same in IE, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and that one on the
> Mac (Sorry, I forget the name of it) and I'm not talking about simple
> problems like differences in fonts.
> 
> Then you have Quicktime, MPEG, AVI, WMV, SWF, Java, VRML, Shockwave
> (mostly legacy), Acrobat, Real Player (almost gone now) and a few others
> that are not so popular. I know that these ones that I've mentioned are
> not open standards, but they are standards nonetheless and in many
> circles these plugins are expected to exist on the Web client side,
> therefore they make up the hodge-podge of what the Web is today.
> 
> And even though these are not open standards, they still need to be
> considered by the Open Source community since they help to make things
> complicated. They've made what the Web is today more deep rooted meaning
> that it'll take quite an attractive new technology to lure everyone
> away.
> 
> 
> 
>>>Microsoft would have to offer one really really sweet deal for the
>>>entire Web as we know it to fold and for everyone to move over to
>>>XAML/.NET/Windows 200x. That would have to be the mother of all
> 
> killer
> 
>>>apps.
> 
> 
>>   To some extent I agree with you. However, without reasonable
>>competition deployed prior to the release of XAML, Microsoft could
> 
> come
> 
>>in with a complete and comprehensive suite of development tools an
> 
> grab
> 
>>a significant portion of the development market before anyone knows
> 
> what
> 
>>hit them. It would take a decade to undo this kind of damage if we're
>>not prepared.
> 
> 
> I do see what you're saying. But at the end of the day it's all about
> dollars and cents. Even if Microsoft offers an extremely scalable
> technology, offers extremely easy-to-use development tools, offers those
> tools absolutely free, offers development documentation that makes
> development easy and offers this all to the public at large tomorrow,
> it's still going take money to redevelop new Web content, redevelop
> back-end programming to talk to DB's, redevelop front-ends.
> 
> Now, if Microsoft offers to completely pay for all the new development
> costs as well, then I'd say we're in trouble. But that aside, the
> consequentialist mentality of the business world is, I think, what'll
> stop this from happening too quickly.
> 
> I'll add another 0.02 to the pot.
> 
> ;o)
> 
> 
> 
>>>(my 0.02)
> 
> 
>>   That's in New Yen, right? ;)
> 
> 
> Heheh, nah, that's in Canadian funds ... so in USD that would be about
> 0.0002
> 
> ;o)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
> _______________________________________________
> xul-talk mailing list
>  [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
> _______________________________________________
> xul-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
> .
> 



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/