WAML vs. XAML
The proposed solution to this quagmire is WHAT WG, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group. Announced just a few days ago, the group "aims to develop specifications based on HTML and related technologies to ease the deployment of interoperable Web Applications, with the intention of submitting the results to a standards organisation". The plan seems to be to develop new extensions to HTML 4 in an open environment, while avoiding breaking backwards compatible with the ever-present Internet Explorer. This group is no fly-by night organisation of hot-headed web nerds: the current membership includes key representatives of the Mozilla, Opera and Safari browser teams, most of whom have experience working on W3C specifications. They're running an open mailing list and already have an initial draft document for Web Applications Markup Language 1.0, their first proposed specification.
WHAT's going on? - SitePoint DHTML & CSS Blog
This is something I'm going to start tracking. Recent first-hand experience working with web applications shows me that browsers have some serious limitations. Flash apps like Flickr have done a good job overcoming some of them, but I think a higher level of "desktop integration" (for want of a better word) is needed.
It's no accident that they chose the name WAML: these vendors have teamed up to produce an open specification in direct competition with Microsoft's XAML . Or as Simon Willison called it when it was released, "Microsoft's XUL". With the Mozilla team on board, I expect a lot of the XUL work to be folded in here. Heck, this might even just be a XUL re-branding exercise.
Amazing: I first talked about XAML about 600 posts ago, in October of 2003. And of the two options, "Develop a compelling alternative platform" is what this announcement heralds.
Similar
Recently viewed
Comments
Now there's XAMJ
A Java-based system is the natural alternative to something like XAML. Check out http://html.xamjwg.org .
wasn't ZUUL...
some sort of a dog? ;-)
Flash? u must b joking.
MS integrates web to the desktop via published APIs, it's a crime against humanity. Other people try it, it's OK?
XAML is compiled. XUL is intepreted.
XAML rides the Avalon vector engine. XUL is raster.
Flash: I am seeing Flash used
Flash: I am seeing Flash used for things like Gush and Flickr. Gush looks and feels like a desktop application. Flickr looks and feels like an online desktop. I am definitely not a Flash cheerleader for standard web content, but it may make sense for some rich web applications or even cross-platform desktop apps.
Interpreted: look at all the successful PHP web applications -- all interpreted.
Avalon vector engine: yep, and it only works on Windows, too. Too bad for all the smartphones and other non-PC devices (see? I didn't even say anything about the Mac ghetto!). And of course XUL could work with SVG content, which is vector.
I'm not saying XAML is bad -- it's Microsoft's next big thing. I like the fact that there is choice, and there might very well be a viable alternative.