> This is the exact use case for web components, except it doesn’t require browsers shipping their own implementation and updates - it’s all in userland. 'User

> This is the exact use case for web components, except it doesn’t require browsers shipping their own implementation and updates - it’s all in userland. 'Userland' isn't really the right word here: web components aren't from my land; they just execute there — they are from some server. And that's the problem: to display a map (which is, really, just an image, something HTML has been able to display inline since the late 90s) I have to grant execute permissions on my computer to some random piece of JavaScript written by a programmer of unknown competence and beneficence, and reviewed by precisely no-one. If it's in-browser, the implementation is auditable. It doesn't change on a per-page-load basis. It doesn't require JavaScript. It can be made to work for anyone, on any platform (even if all 'work' means on a particular platform is 'there's a map of $LAT, $LONG here'). It is far less likely to be an intrusion vector. It is far less likely to violate my privacy. It is far less likely to beacon to half a dozen advertisers. JavaScript isn't just killing the Web: it's murdering it. I sometimes think that JavaScript developers would like to just get rid of HTML entirely: just build the entire page dynamically. HTML is just their bootloader.