3 ms·

Maybe. But maybe those progressive enhancements are not good ideas either. HTML just enabled to penetrate the microsoft platform. HTML was designed for static d

by jokoon 10y ago

Maybe. But maybe those progressive enhancements are not good ideas either. HTML just enabled to penetrate the microsoft platform. HTML was designed for static documents, not web apps.

wvenable 10y ago
So argument isn't so much that we should have binary HTML but we should actually just run Java* apps in a sandbox. I'd say there is merit to that argument and we'll probably get there the long way around. Perhaps webassembly will succeed where Java applets failed. * Or your virtual platform of choice.
- jokoon 10y ago
  Sandboxed apps are not really a good thing IMO. I agree that webassembly is a good thing too. BUT, my critic is about the DOM and the text-only approach, and also HTML not being strict enough so that all browsers can use it. It is the same compromise between having a compiled or an interpreted language. A compiled language will always be faster and smaller. If you put the burden on a HTML compiler instead of how the browser displays a binary document, you won't have those issues.
  - wvenable 10y ago
    > Sandboxed apps are not really a good thing IMO. Interesting because isn't that sort of what you advocating for. Ultimately what's the difference between strict compiled binary executable "HTML" and something like a Java applet? > BUT, my critic is about the DOM and the text-only approach, and also HTML not being strict enough so that all browsers can use it. But really the problem isn't the syntax of HTML/CSS/JS but the semantics. Everybody can parse this stuff pretty much equivalently now but they still do different things with it. I don't see how compiling to binary would change that.
    - jokoon 10y ago
      Binary html is not an executable nor a program, it is just data, here it would be the dom tree, compiled, not using text data all over. > I don't see how compiling to binary would change that. The solution is forcing a stricter version of the language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dYwEyjZcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dYwEyjZcY
      - wvenable 10y ago
        Two issues: the problem is semantics not syntax. A binary version of HTML with all the same values a text version of HTML won't change anything. It isn't the values, it's what done with the values. This is a fix to a problem that doesn't exist. A stricter version of HTML would not have allowed for the progressive enhancement that existed throughout the evolution of HTML.

by jokoon 10y ago

Maybe. But maybe those progressive enhancements are not good ideas either. HTML just enabled to penetrate the microsoft platform. HTML was designed for static documents, not web apps.

wvenable 10y ago

So argument isn't so much that we should have binary HTML but we should actually just run Java* apps in a sandbox. I'd say there is merit to that argument and we'll probably get there the long way around. Perhaps webassembly will succeed where Java applets failed. * Or your virtual platform of choice.

jokoon 10y ago
Sandboxed apps are not really a good thing IMO. I agree that webassembly is a good thing too. BUT, my critic is about the DOM and the text-only approach, and also HTML not being strict enough so that all browsers can use it. It is the same compromise between having a compiled or an interpreted language. A compiled language will always be faster and smaller. If you put the burden on a HTML compiler instead of how the browser displays a binary document, you won't have those issues.
- wvenable 10y ago
  > Sandboxed apps are not really a good thing IMO. Interesting because isn't that sort of what you advocating for. Ultimately what's the difference between strict compiled binary executable "HTML" and something like a Java applet? > BUT, my critic is about the DOM and the text-only approach, and also HTML not being strict enough so that all browsers can use it. But really the problem isn't the syntax of HTML/CSS/JS but the semantics. Everybody can parse this stuff pretty much equivalently now but they still do different things with it. I don't see how compiling to binary would change that.
  - jokoon 10y ago
    Binary html is not an executable nor a program, it is just data, here it would be the dom tree, compiled, not using text data all over. > I don't see how compiling to binary would change that. The solution is forcing a stricter version of the language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dYwEyjZcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dYwEyjZcY
    - wvenable 10y ago
      Two issues: the problem is semantics not syntax. A binary version of HTML with all the same values a text version of HTML won't change anything. It isn't the values, it's what done with the values. This is a fix to a problem that doesn't exist. A stricter version of HTML would not have allowed for the progressive enhancement that existed throughout the evolution of HTML.