> Throwing web-interactivity (via Javascript) away Javascript is not the only way to provide interactivity. CSS, for example, provides some form validation met

> Throwing web-interactivity (via Javascript) away Javascript is not the only way to provide interactivity. CSS, for example, provides some form validation methods in a declarative style. Sometimes you can do it server-side. Many types of interactivity were possible before the current JS mess. If there is a type of common interactivity that is not supported without JS, we can always add it as a new browser features, just like we did with everything else in the browser. > any functionality that offers access to the hardware (via however many layers) to "apps" from the "cloud" can be exploited this way That's why you don't provide an runtime environment for "apps". Rendering data (a document, an image, video, etc.) does not need arbitrary software. It only needs a way to send a media file to the appropriate renderer. <img> and <video> tags should work fine. > how will YouTube play videos? Why is this even a question? They can serve an mp4 (or whatever) at some URL, and reference it in the <video> tag. Video playback doesn't require running arbitrary software, because we already have local video players.