4 ms·
Awesome, thanks for the clarification. Here's what I'm trying to reconcile: if the idea is to break off the awesome subset of multimedia web tech, because it w
by avaer 9y ago
Awesome, thanks for the clarification.
Here's what I'm trying to reconcile: if the idea is to break off the awesome subset of multimedia web tech, because it would be easier to implement than a full browser -- I 100% agree! -- then why is there a need for a new mimetype/format?
Many things could be done better than the current HTML-as-laundry-list approach, but if we invent a new format, that adds the extremely difficult problem of getting everyone on board, rewriting things for it. The brilliance of asm.js (which gave birth to WASM) was that everyone had already implemented it before it existed.
- bobajeff 9y agoLike you say it would be a subset. It's all just standard WebAssembly. The APIs of course would need to be made callable from WebAssembly but that's already planned for in browsers anyway. Until browsers supported the mimetype they could just be served as .wasm files. Not that the mimetype is important at all I just think it more clearly states it's intended use.