Article:		Graphical Composition in Avalon
Subject:		XAML
Date:		2004-03-17 07:17:54
From:		zicco
Do Microsoft always have to reinvent everything? "XAML"? Couldn't they just use SVG so graphic designers can use existing tools and enjoy an open, tried and reliable format?

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• XAML
  2004-04-06 10:03:25  musnat [View]
  
  
  I truly admired the patience of the author to such stupid claims. SVG has nothing to do with XAML. What an idiot you are zicco. Just because you think you can get away with, you throw out something you are not even knowledgable about. XAML competes with XUL in a way, you may accuse Microsoft for not using XUL, but still that will not change the fact that you are a pure idiot. I don't understand why Microsoft attracks so many idiots. XUL is a half-ass solution with lots of stuff up in the air. That's why not many people use it. It is not a bad stuff, but so much more has to be done, and mozilla developers clearly declared that they are against Microsoft and thus it is stupid to say Microsoft should use XUL. Many mozilla developers are eager to take down Microsoft, they are not open minded people. In the slides one of the lead developers say that mozilla should colloborate with Safari and Opera, there is no mention of Microsoft. That's pure evil.
  
  SVG is also going through a stupid slow process. Even on mozilla they don't have built-in support for that. Adobe has a nice plugin which works great on Internet Explorer, but because irresponsible mozilla developers changed some of the APIs, adobe's plugin doesn't work on mozilla. That's where SVG is. Its progress is painfully slow, yet many idiots do not acknowledge that fact. So we end up having nothing, but they don't want Microsoft to develop something either, they just want everybody to sit and wait W3C.

• XAML
  2004-03-17 08:15:30  Ian Griffiths | [View]
  
  
  XAML doesn't reinvent SVG. It also doesn't reinvent XUL. People regularly accuse it of doing both, but if you're familiar with both SVG and XUL, you'll know that at least one of those accusations has to be false. (Most people wouldn't accuse XUL of competing with SVG.) :-)
  
  As it happens, it doesn't really reinvent either.
  
  This has been hashed through many times already elsewhere, so instead of rehearsing the arguments yet again here, I'll just point you at a few existing discussions:
  
  I already addressed this very point in an earlier article in this series here: http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2004/01/19/longhorn.html
  
  One of the architects who designed XAML writes a little about the history here. Although he doesn't mention SVG, once you've read the design goals, it becomes clear why SVG would never have worked:
  http://www.simplegeek.com/permalink.aspx/100aec62-3352-4c35-b471-f3f2fa5fac5a
  
  Some more from the same guy on why not they're not using CSS either:
  http://www.simplegeek.com/permalink.aspx/b7e02709-0112-4977-9b73-1aa9d471a570
  
  Another guy from Microsoft on why they didn't use SVG: http://www.eightypercent.net/Archive/2003/11/04.html#a153
  
  
  Don Box blogged several times about XAML in November 2003, all of it showing how to use XAML without using Avalon, demonstrating again one of the fundamental features of XAML that means they couldn't have used SVG (it really has nothing to do with graphics - XAML is just a way of hooking up .NET object models; it's only the XAML+Avalon combination that does graphics): http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/dbox/default.aspx?month=2003-11
  (I'd recommend starting from the bottom of that page and working up.)
  
  More can be found easily via Google...