(Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla) XML driven Applications

Ok, Microsoft has put thier cards on the table - XAML (http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/04/01/Avalon/default.aspx) (eXtensible Application Markup Language, codename Avalon (http://longhorn.msdn.microsoft.com/lhsdk/core/overviews/road_map.aspx)) is one of the new technologies that will be part of the Windows codename Longhorn (http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/) operative system. It's a technology that is not too unlike the language that powers the graphical part of the Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Firebird, Mozilla Thunderbird - XUL (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/).

Apple have not yet an XML language for graphical application construction, but they have in their latest release of the Safari browser (version 1.1 for OS X 10.3 "Panther") implemented part of the XUL box model, perhaps as a step towards that goal.

A good place to start reading is the recent XUL (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2003_10.html#004257) post on Apple developer (former Netscape engineer) Dave Hyatt's weblog Surfin' Safari. It links most of the discussion that can be seen about XAML and XUL in weblogs for the moment.



So, is Mozilla really a product of the future, or has it only been a testingground for ideas that Microsoft can "borrow" and use to create an even stronger "lockin" to the Windows platform? What if Microsoft launches XAML as the new Web language?

Does it matter? If we have a way of creating applications in XML, I don't see the problem. Sure, one may be better, but that won't stop whichever Microsoft/W3C choses from becoming dominant. I'm sure we'll reminisce about the other, but life will go on.

What will be interesting is if Microsoft codes the new IE in XAML while Mozilla continues in XUL which the W3C choses to support... then I think the superior language will triumph.

Originally posted by me'
What will be interesting is if Microsoft codes the new IE in XAML while Mozilla continues in XUL which the W3C choses to support... then I think the superior language will triumph.

Note that W3C stands for World Wide Web Consortium. XAML and XUL have to do with user-interface design and application development. I don't think this falls into W3C's scope.

Just remember, XML is XML, and with XSLT, lots of things are possible ;).

But writing applications in XAML or XUL is only one step away from writing them to work in a browser and using a scripting language to do the dirty work, a web-application future that myself, and I'm sure many others, would love to see.

Originally posted by me'
But writing applications in XAML or XUL is only one step away from writing them to work in a browser and using a scripting language to do the dirty work, a web-application future that myself, and I'm sure many others, would love to see.

It's already here. I've slowly but surely been working on an Application using XUL, XHTML, XML, CSS, JavaScript, and a bit of PHP and MySQL on the server side. Pick up a copy of "Creating Applications with Mozilla (http://books.mozdev.org/)", and you'll be on your way too.

Already we know that XAML will be Longhorn-only. I can build applications using XUL and the Mozilla Framework that will run (without modification) on Windows 98-Longhorn, Linux, Mac OS X, and Mac OS 9 (although Mozilla support for OS9 has been dropped), several varieties of Unix, and BeOS.

Forget Microsoft! We need to rally behind the "better" technology... which is usually not coming out of Redmond.

Originally posted by Skyzyx
Already we know that XAML will be Longhorn-only. Ah right. Well, that's a stupid move on MS's behalf. They seriously can't expect web developers to follow a proprietary language? The number of developers, graphical designs etc. on Macs or Linux...

Well, hello XUL! Just out of interest, which one is better? (the anwswer will be inevitably opnioniated I know, I'm just curious).

Originally posted by me'
Well, hello XUL! Just out of interest, which one is better? (the anwswer will be inevitably opnioniated I know, I'm just curious).

XAML looks almost identical to XUL at times. I seem to remember that XUL does some things better, but I'm sure XAML has some markup niceties too. XUL, however, is already established, with several XUL engines already in existence (not just Mozilla knows how to render XUL). XAML also incorporates WVG from what I've seen, which is almost identical to SVG, but proprietary of course. SVG is quite established.

The combination of cross-platform rendering, various rendering engines, and use of established technologies makes XUL a lot more practical and useful; however XAML being native on Longhorn will inevitably make it dominate at least that platform.

There's a difference in purpose here. XAML is made for end user application creation on the windows platform in a high level, highly abstracted language (read as: the language is simplified as much as possible, the computer does the thinking that in a regular program would fall on the programmer to do, which above all makes it processor heavy unless you compile it). XUL on the other hand is a an interface language alone, you need RDF, XBL, JS, C/C++ or other code using XPCOM to actually be able to do anything. Also, XAML takes a step away from CSS while XUL embraces it.

XAML is more power ful than XUL, but that is because of that the entire OS is the engine for it, while for XUL, it's a regular application, albeit one of the most powerful around.