Talk:User interface markup language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:34, 23 February 2007

Revision as of 04:14, 20 July 2010

Line 9:

The section on XAML does not mention Microsoft at all and does not quite fit in with the style of the rest of the article. May I suggest NPOV cleanup?

==no criticism section?==

The markup-based UI, even after many years of evolution, in terms of REAL application development, remains an unqualified disaster compared to options available to thick client developers. The markup-script-based UI requires FAR more effort to implement, are less reliable, look worse, and delivers less functionality than any thick client UI.

And on the contrary - markup languages do not prevent "reinvention of the wheel" at all in practice - they encourage cut and paste.

The whole idea of markup as UI is flawed because its predicated on the HTML / JavaScript spec already covering everything a UI needs to be, at a very high level - and that's just never going to happen. Yes there is a demand for a high-level way of expressing a user interface, but any silly markup-script UI should be compiled into a lower level file by the designer. Browsers should receive something entirely different.

Just my $.02.

[[Special:Contributions/24.60.177.137|24.60.177.137]] ([[User talk:24.60.177.137|talk]]) 04:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)