5 ms·

Is this suggesting that this would rely on browser implementation? ... Is this serious? What motivation do browser-creators have to implement this? Google wan

Is this suggesting that this would rely on browser implementation? ... Is this serious? What motivation do browser-creators have to implement this? Google wants the javascript widget so they can properly track everything, among other reasons. Who would back this? Who would develop this? This isn't like playing a media file, this is a highly interactive piece of content, with a metric shitload of complexity behind it. I don't think the author really understands the scope of what he is asking. Although if you feel I'm mistaken, please enlighten me.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
paulddraper 9y ago
> How about we get rid of all those external libraries as a dependency? Let's do what we did with <video> and make mapping a first class element. The difference is that you really can't do <video> very well without <video>. Handling encodings, using video hardware, being energy efficient...this is a lot of low-level graphics stuff. It's a primitive. In contrast, you can make a map with JS and SVG/canvas/WebGL as good as a browser could do it.
- nebulous1 9y ago
  more importantly, <video> doesn't require a 3rd party service
warent 9y ago
Not the author, but let's address your questions: "Is this serious?" It doesn't appear to be a joke "Who would back this? Who would develop this?" These are the same questions that the author is asking. I agree it seems unlikely this feature would be very useful. Your post however is even less useful than a well articulated idea. This comment you made actually adds negative value due in part to nonsense hyperbole like "metric shitload of complexity," failing to dive into meaningful details.
justhackedme 9y ago
Not to mention, who's data are you using? Lol this must be a joke.
mcphage 9y ago
> this is a highly interactive piece of content, with a metric shitload of complexity behind it More specifically, it's a highly interactive piece of content, with a metric shitload complexity behind it, that's currently implemented entirely in javascript. From that perspective, turning it into a native browser component seems like a good idea.
pedalpete 9y ago
Are you suggesting that playing a media file with all the different formats, streaming resolutions, etc is not a "metric shitload of complexity"? And your argument regarding companies wanting javascript so they can track everything goes equally for the video tag as well. Though I agree the interaction with maps is different from video, how about we first give the poster credit for recognizing a problem/opportunity. Ok, so let's say it is a real browser implementation. My first reaction was "but the map imagery providers all want to get paid for their content. I had assumed this meant the browser being built in with the map content, but that "might" not be the case. Google, Microsoft and Apple all already have their own mapping solutions, so each browser "could" use those services by default. Otherwise, the website owner still needs to decide which mapping service to license. Map tile loading and navigation is mostly (it seems) a solved problem, much like video is. Even 3d mapping for the most part seems to have fallen into common navigation schemes (though there is room for improvement). So now, what is so out of scope? Layers? Common across platforms, why not? Directions, sure. What are we missing that you think would be so impossible.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

paulddraper 9y ago

> How about we get rid of all those external libraries as a dependency? Let's do what we did with <video> and make mapping a first class element. The difference is that you really can't do <video> very well without <video>. Handling encodings, using video hardware, being energy efficient...this is a lot of low-level graphics stuff. It's a primitive. In contrast, you can make a map with JS and SVG/canvas/WebGL as good as a browser could do it.

nebulous1 9y ago
more importantly, <video> doesn't require a 3rd party service

warent 9y ago

Not the author, but let's address your questions: "Is this serious?" It doesn't appear to be a joke "Who would back this? Who would develop this?" These are the same questions that the author is asking. I agree it seems unlikely this feature would be very useful. Your post however is even less useful than a well articulated idea. This comment you made actually adds negative value due in part to nonsense hyperbole like "metric shitload of complexity," failing to dive into meaningful details.

justhackedme 9y ago

Not to mention, who's data are you using? Lol this must be a joke.

mcphage 9y ago

> this is a highly interactive piece of content, with a metric shitload of complexity behind it More specifically, it's a highly interactive piece of content, with a metric shitload complexity behind it, that's currently implemented entirely in javascript. From that perspective, turning it into a native browser component seems like a good idea.

pedalpete 9y ago

Are you suggesting that playing a media file with all the different formats, streaming resolutions, etc is not a "metric shitload of complexity"? And your argument regarding companies wanting javascript so they can track everything goes equally for the video tag as well. Though I agree the interaction with maps is different from video, how about we first give the poster credit for recognizing a problem/opportunity. Ok, so let's say it is a real browser implementation. My first reaction was "but the map imagery providers all want to get paid for their content. I had assumed this meant the browser being built in with the map content, but that "might" not be the case. Google, Microsoft and Apple all already have their own mapping solutions, so each browser "could" use those services by default. Otherwise, the website owner still needs to decide which mapping service to license. Map tile loading and navigation is mostly (it seems) a solved problem, much like video is. Even 3d mapping for the most part seems to have fallen into common navigation schemes (though there is room for improvement). So now, what is so out of scope? Layers? Common across platforms, why not? Directions, sure. What are we missing that you think would be so impossible.