Re: RE: XML] Re: SIDE NOTE: CIL Schema
NEX Info <[email protected]> Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:20:10 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.o-xml |
|---|---|
| Organization | NEX SOFTWARE |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1460174175== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060405020301020306050201" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060405020301020306050201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Note, that it is my prediction that Microsoft will be >implementing the latest version of ECMAScript (with >type-checking and OOP) in the next version of IE. I also >predict that it will (A) be CLI/.Net and thus (B) any >.Net language will run on the client, manipulate the >DOM, etc, and will render this conversation irrelevant. > >None the less, it seems like an interesting project. So, >what have I done? > > I am not so sure Microsoft will implement ECMAScript in its latest version of IE. In fact, I think IE as it is known, is dead. If I look at what XAML is (more or less, the same that XUL in Mozilla), my prediction is that the distinction between a browser and a common user interface in Windows will dissapear, so that I am not sure even if a new MS (independent) browser will exist. In an scenario like this, why to use ECMAScript when you have all .Net languages available? Obviously, this is speculative, but I think the coming Longhorn will not have any independent browser at all. Maybe the users will "think" they have, but in my opinion the Operating System will do all the job. In this scenario, script languages may become obsolete or may become the most important client languages of all. Who knows? \\jordi --------------060405020301020306050201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> <br> <blockquote cite="mid20050112103005.61245.qmail-rTdHX3CHtYmA/[email protected]" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Note, that it is my prediction that Microsoft will be implementing the latest version of ECMAScript (with type-checking and OOP) in the next version of IE. I also predict that it will (A) be CLI/.Net and thus (B) any .Net language will run on the client, manipulate the DOM, etc, and will render this conversation irrelevant. None the less, it seems like an interesting project. So, what have I done? </pre> </blockquote> <br> I am not so sure Microsoft will implement ECMAScript in its latest version of IE. In fact, I think IE as it is known, is dead.<br> If I look at what XAML is (more or less, the same that XUL in Mozilla), my prediction is that the distinction between a browser and a common user interface in Windows will dissapear, so that I am not sure even if a new MS (independent) browser will exist. In an scenario like this, why to use ECMAScript when you have all .Net languages available? Obviously, this is speculative, but I think the coming Longhorn will not have any independent browser at all. Maybe the users will "think" they have, but in my opinion the Operating System will do all the job.<br> In this scenario, script languages may become obsolete or may become the most important client languages of all. Who knows?<br> <br> \\jordi <br> </body> </html> --------------060405020301020306050201-- --===============1460174175== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ o-xml mailing list o-xml-zRfLyl9bSvv/[email protected] http://lists.pingdynasty.com/mailman/listinfo/o-xml --===============1460174175==--