- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:05:03 -0700
- To: www-talk@w3.org
There are various sites around the Web all complaining about the same thing and proposing variations of the same solution. Roughly, they want to be able to build sophisticated client side applications without constantly going back to the server. They want hierarchical menu widgets, drag-and-drop, sliders, tabbed-notebooks, icon view widgets, etc. etc. I could list a hundred projects that claim to free us from the tyranny of text-oriented HTML pages: * DOMAPI * DynAPI * Netwindows * Browser-based application Toolkit * Jude * ... Each one "hacks up" rich application UI constructs in a different way. I don't mean to disparage the projects. When you force a platform (i.e. page-oriented HTML) to do something it wasn't designed to do, you are hacking, no matter how elegant the result. These controls tend to be very browser-specific and fragile. They make no pretence of device independence (even though a menu or notebook construct might actually make sense on alternate devices). Most of them treat HTML as display postscript. And then there are a bunch of projects to define standards for XML-based interfaces (XUL, WSUI, UIML, ...). It seems clear that the Web is going to evolve into a rich-client application platform but there will be a variety of different toolkits to choose from, each with a slightly incompatible behaviour. It will be like the fragmented early days of X-Windows with no standardization, poor inter-app interoperability and no style guidelines. Should there be a working group with the responsibility to clean up this situation? I don't think we need to expect HTML to grow into a rich client-app language: the work could be spun off as SVG and forms were. Opinions? Paul Prescod
Received on Friday, 13 September 2002 16:11:45 UTC