4 ms·
> HTML and CSS are not designed for anything complex. Yeah, I believe you, I can see how that would have been the thinking back in the 90's. But there started
by crispyambulance 5y ago
> HTML and CSS are not designed for anything complex.
Yeah, I believe you, I can see how that would have been the thinking back in the 90's. But there started to be significant web applications in the early 2000's.
It's all water under the bridge now, but what if there had been more "throwing away" (deprecation) of the bad stuff and less mitigation with the whims of browser implementors? I feel like we would be in a better position today.
What if the W3C had taken a more standards-based approach with hard PASS/FAIL requirements on styling/layout/semantics rather than "recommendations" that browser implementors have always taken as optional and subject to interpretation?
- dmitriid 5y ago> But there started to be significant web applications in the early 2000's. And then you had IE6 and stagnation on the web :) > It's all water under the bridge now, but what if there had been more "throwing away" (deprecation) of the bad stuff and less mitigation with the whims of browser implementors? I feel like we would be in a better position today. You could view Canvas, WebGL, WebGPU and WebASM as going in that direction. > What if the W3C had taken a more standards-based approach with hard PASS/FAIL requirements W3C has no power over browsers, and is made up of browser implementors (among other people).
- atatatat 5y agoNow we're doing "WebAssembly", "WASM", and "WebASM"?!