Re: Ajax vs. XML UI Language (XUL) Toolkits

Gerald Bauer wrote:
> Possibly the easiest way for diffentiation is the client technology
> 
> - AJAX: HTML, CSS, JavaScript (Dojo / Ruby-on-Rails / Backbase)
[Snip!]
> - XUL / XAML: fat client

    I'd just like to point out that you could probably use AJAX with 
XUL, so it's not necessarily separate or mutually exclusive. It does 
still suffer from the need to download Firefox or XULRunner, though...

    I understand XAML requires compilation and doesn't allow CSS, so I 
don't think AJAX would be possible there.

> The main objection we hear from people about AJAX is 'death by a  
> thousand cuts': they mean that browsers have so many quirks, that it's
> nearly impossible to develop and maintain stable AJAX applications.  
> Of course, this is the problem that AJAX toolkits aim to solve.

    This would be a good thing to bring up on the WHATWG mailing list. 
If you could get them to standardize AJAX, it would at the very least be 
standard across Opera, Mozilla and Safari. Then you'd only have to worry 
about the Microsoft quirks, and depending on the way AJAX is specified, 
that might not be an issue.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
Want to be the first software developer in space?
Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click