4 ms·

This is true, but a web browser can't really make those choices without a breaking a lot existing stuff. The big problem is that we keep piling onto HTML, CSS,

by anfilt 8y ago

This is true, but a web browser can't really make those choices without a breaking a lot existing stuff. The big problem is that we keep piling onto HTML, CSS, and JS. For instance if we wanted web apps it would have been better to make something separate. Instead we have taken HTML which was originally just a way of rich text formatting and have made into the beast that it is today.

robocat 8y ago
I wish Google Search would create an HTML5 subset for documents that would boost rankings if used. A good majority of search results I am looking for should be simple single page HTML documents that don't use complex HTML5 features that are needed for web apps. Change ranking, and you give websites the incentive to avoid JavaScript or CSS features that are against the reader's interests.
- pitaj 8y ago
  I'm 80% sure you're joking, but just in case, this is essentially what AMP does.
- anfilt 8y ago
  Last thing we need is google dictating more about the internet.
dredmorbius 8y ago
..without a breaking a lot existing stuff... That's specifically why and how new standards apear. They accomplish most (though not all) the earlier capbilities, with a masive reduction of complexity. It's a form of risk mitigation and debt reduction. Compare browsers generally: Netscape -> MSIE -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Chrome -> Firefox. Each predecessor reached a point of complexity at which, even with massive infusions of IPO, software monopoly, or advertising monopoly cash, they were unsustainable. The old, dedicated dependencies (frames, ActiveX, RealPlayer, Flash, ...) broke. Simpler designs continued to function.
hoffs 8y ago
>For instance if we wanted web apps it would have been better to make something separate But then we need to make another app + browser version? Which defeats the purpose...
jcrites 8y ago
This may be a nitpick, but hopefully it's also an interesting rabbit-hole: HTML was originally contemplated as more than a method of rich text formatting. It was created as a way to describe and link arbitrary media and applications. I'd recommend reading the first published proposal for (what later became known as) the World Wide Web written by Tim Berners-Lee [1]. In my reading, I see it as being intended applications as powerful as the kind we build today - at least as far as could be contemplated and described in 1989, and given the degree of abstraction with which the document as written: > "Hypertext" is a term coined in the 1950s by Ted Nelson [...], which has become popular for these systems, although it is used to embrace two different ideas. One idea[] is the concept: "Hypertext": Human-readable information linked together in an unconstrained way. The other idea [...], is of multimedia documents which include graphics, speech and video. I will not discuss this latter aspect further here, although I will use the word "Hypermedia" to indicate that one is not bound to text. An example of anticipated usage: > The data to which a link (or a hot spot) refers may be very static, or it may be temporary. In many cases at CERN information about the state of systems is changing all the time. Hypertext allows documents to be linked into "live" data so that every time the link is followed, the information is retrieved. If one sacrifices portability, it is possible so make following a link fire up a special application, so that diagnostic programs, for example, could be linked directly into the maintenance guide. Another category of use-case was web crawling, link-based document search, and other data analysis. These and other anticipated use-cases envision more than text formatting; the primary purposes of the proposal were, in my opinion, the inter-linking of information and the formal modeling of information, especially for the purpose of combining different programs or facilities into a single user experience. [1] https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
xg15 8y ago
My understanding was that this was the original plan for XHTML. Keep HTML 4.x around as a "legacy standard" for old content, make new developments in a new language with an architecture more suited for modern use cases. Of course this would have required browser vendors to support two languages at the same time for a sufficiently long transition period, which was apparently too much to demand.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  But they did support both languages, and support them to this day. It's the sites that didn't adopt XHTML. Everybody on the infrastructure side loved it.

by anfilt 8y ago

robocat 8y ago

I wish Google Search would create an HTML5 subset for documents that would boost rankings if used. A good majority of search results I am looking for should be simple single page HTML documents that don't use complex HTML5 features that are needed for web apps. Change ranking, and you give websites the incentive to avoid JavaScript or CSS features that are against the reader's interests.

pitaj 8y ago
I'm 80% sure you're joking, but just in case, this is essentially what AMP does.
anfilt 8y ago
Last thing we need is google dictating more about the internet.

dredmorbius 8y ago

..without a breaking a lot existing stuff... That's specifically why and how new standards apear. They accomplish most (though not all) the earlier capbilities, with a masive reduction of complexity. It's a form of risk mitigation and debt reduction. Compare browsers generally: Netscape -> MSIE -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Chrome -> Firefox. Each predecessor reached a point of complexity at which, even with massive infusions of IPO, software monopoly, or advertising monopoly cash, they were unsustainable. The old, dedicated dependencies (frames, ActiveX, RealPlayer, Flash, ...) broke. Simpler designs continued to function.

hoffs 8y ago

>For instance if we wanted web apps it would have been better to make something separate But then we need to make another app + browser version? Which defeats the purpose...

jcrites 8y ago

This may be a nitpick, but hopefully it's also an interesting rabbit-hole: HTML was originally contemplated as more than a method of rich text formatting. It was created as a way to describe and link arbitrary media and applications. I'd recommend reading the first published proposal for (what later became known as) the World Wide Web written by Tim Berners-Lee [1]. In my reading, I see it as being intended applications as powerful as the kind we build today - at least as far as could be contemplated and described in 1989, and given the degree of abstraction with which the document as written: > "Hypertext" is a term coined in the 1950s by Ted Nelson [...], which has become popular for these systems, although it is used to embrace two different ideas. One idea[] is the concept: "Hypertext": Human-readable information linked together in an unconstrained way. The other idea [...], is of multimedia documents which include graphics, speech and video. I will not discuss this latter aspect further here, although I will use the word "Hypermedia" to indicate that one is not bound to text. An example of anticipated usage: > The data to which a link (or a hot spot) refers may be very static, or it may be temporary. In many cases at CERN information about the state of systems is changing all the time. Hypertext allows documents to be linked into "live" data so that every time the link is followed, the information is retrieved. If one sacrifices portability, it is possible so make following a link fire up a special application, so that diagnostic programs, for example, could be linked directly into the maintenance guide. Another category of use-case was web crawling, link-based document search, and other data analysis. These and other anticipated use-cases envision more than text formatting; the primary purposes of the proposal were, in my opinion, the inter-linking of information and the formal modeling of information, especially for the purpose of combining different programs or facilities into a single user experience. [1] https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html

xg15 8y ago

My understanding was that this was the original plan for XHTML. Keep HTML 4.x around as a "legacy standard" for old content, make new developments in a new language with an architecture more suited for modern use cases. Of course this would have required browser vendors to support two languages at the same time for a sufficiently long transition period, which was apparently too much to demand.

marcosdumay 8y ago
But they did support both languages, and support them to this day. It's the sites that didn't adopt XHTML. Everybody on the infrastructure side loved it.