5 ms·

You are arguing a point I didn’t make. I think it would be great if we build standards for consuming media and content like mind maps and charts - I just don’t

by achn 6y ago

You are arguing a point I didn’t make. I think it would be great if we build standards for consuming media and content like mind maps and charts - I just don’t want to be forced to open up to running any arbitrary code to be able to consume that content. We’ve been lead into a false dichotomy.

derefr 6y ago
My point was that — allowing that "the web" is just arbitrary 'stuff' at URLs, and that a "web browser" is a tool for viewing that arbitrary 'stuff' — there are always going to be novel non-standardized, proprietary document types residing at URLs, that people will nevertheless expect their web browser to display for them (and rightly so!) How will users view these documents in a timely manner (i.e. not on the W3C's glacial schedule)? Whatever your answer, it's going to necessarily involve some kind of arbitrary code execution at some point. Whether that means Javascript; Java/ActiveX applets, or PPAPI (NaCl); Chrome Apps or other in-browser centrally-managed-lifecycle apps; installable NPAPI plugins like Flash; or COM component servers (as seen when e.g. IE/Edge is navigated to an .xlsx file URL.) Presuming the user discovers they can't view document X, and therefore goes and hunts down tech Y and installs it to make X viewable, all such "tech Y" are equivalent in the sense that they're someone's arbitrary proprietary code, that the user is rolling the dice on hopefully allowing them to view X, while not doing anything other than allowing them to view X.
- dirkt 6y ago
  > allowing that "the web" is just arbitrary 'stuff' at URLs It's not. The majority is just textual content I want to read. Possibly with a few images. I don't need Javascript for that. And being forced to use Javascript for it is the exact problem. For the minority (something clever that requires user interaction beyond reading text and looking at pictures, this "non-standarized", maybe even "proprietary" stuff) Javascript is just fine. But don't force me to use Javascript for the rest.
the_other 6y ago
We tried that with XML, and no-one liked it. The majority of web developers think the semantic web is a waste of time. (I don’t) Pushing your point further, you’re saying that every new development that could be shareable over the web gets published as a standard and that browser developers build implementations of those standards, before the content is released. By the time that’s happened, your mind map will be out of date. When anyone creates a novel representation someone will need to develop new code that renders it. Whether that goes into a native browser or a Java applet or a JS script, it’s still arbitrary code downloaded from a source you need to establish trust with. You’re taking this too far. (And I admit my illustration smudges both your and my point). The problem we really have is that advertising and SEO have corrupted the web to the point of unusability. If we (google mostly) hadn’t monetised individual tracking, we wouldn’t need the worst bits of what people do with javascript. Publishers are fighting for your attention because that creates surface for advertising. And advertising creates revenue. If they could sell content directly rather consumers wouldn’t get caught in an attention war and websites would be less intrusive and demanding. Javascript itself isn’t the problem. I’m not convinced that scripted documents are the problem. The problem is surveillance capitalism and the attention ecconomy.

by achn 6y ago

derefr 6y ago

My point was that — allowing that "the web" is just arbitrary 'stuff' at URLs, and that a "web browser" is a tool for viewing that arbitrary 'stuff' — there are always going to be novel non-standardized, proprietary document types residing at URLs, that people will nevertheless expect their web browser to display for them (and rightly so!) How will users view these documents in a timely manner (i.e. not on the W3C's glacial schedule)? Whatever your answer, it's going to necessarily involve some kind of arbitrary code execution at some point. Whether that means Javascript; Java/ActiveX applets, or PPAPI (NaCl); Chrome Apps or other in-browser centrally-managed-lifecycle apps; installable NPAPI plugins like Flash; or COM component servers (as seen when e.g. IE/Edge is navigated to an .xlsx file URL.) Presuming the user discovers they can't view document X, and therefore goes and hunts down tech Y and installs it to make X viewable, all such "tech Y" are equivalent in the sense that they're someone's arbitrary proprietary code, that the user is rolling the dice on hopefully allowing them to view X, while not doing anything other than allowing them to view X.

dirkt 6y ago
> allowing that "the web" is just arbitrary 'stuff' at URLs It's not. The majority is just textual content I want to read. Possibly with a few images. I don't need Javascript for that. And being forced to use Javascript for it is the exact problem. For the minority (something clever that requires user interaction beyond reading text and looking at pictures, this "non-standarized", maybe even "proprietary" stuff) Javascript is just fine. But don't force me to use Javascript for the rest.

the_other 6y ago

We tried that with XML, and no-one liked it. The majority of web developers think the semantic web is a waste of time. (I don’t) Pushing your point further, you’re saying that every new development that could be shareable over the web gets published as a standard and that browser developers build implementations of those standards, before the content is released. By the time that’s happened, your mind map will be out of date. When anyone creates a novel representation someone will need to develop new code that renders it. Whether that goes into a native browser or a Java applet or a JS script, it’s still arbitrary code downloaded from a source you need to establish trust with. You’re taking this too far. (And I admit my illustration smudges both your and my point). The problem we really have is that advertising and SEO have corrupted the web to the point of unusability. If we (google mostly) hadn’t monetised individual tracking, we wouldn’t need the worst bits of what people do with javascript. Publishers are fighting for your attention because that creates surface for advertising. And advertising creates revenue. If they could sell content directly rather consumers wouldn’t get caught in an attention war and websites would be less intrusive and demanding. Javascript itself isn’t the problem. I’m not convinced that scripted documents are the problem. The problem is surveillance capitalism and the attention ecconomy.