4 ms·
All those words, and yet not once did he even mention the entire reason everything is the way it is: to preserve backwards compatibility. It's like writing an
by hungryhobbit 1y ago
All those words, and yet not once did he even mention the entire reason everything is the way it is: to preserve backwards compatibility.
It's like writing an entire diatribe about how it sucks that people can insult you online, and how that should change ... and not even mentioning the benefits of freedom of speech.
- suprfsat 1y ago[reads the HTML Standard] this is hate speech, essentially
- Mizza 1y ago> It's like writing an entire diatribe about how it sucks that people can insult you online, and how that should change ... and not even mentioning the benefits of freedom of speech. They'll make you a minister in the UK for that.
- flohofwoe 1y agoBackward compatibility can (most likely) be achieved with a dom.js polyfill library which sits on top of that hypothetical new middle-layer thingie.
- zamadatix 1y agoBackwards compatibility is given in HTML by the doctype. I think you might also really be talking to forwards compatibility in addition - "what I would write in an HTML 4 document will (almost) always work the same in an HTML 5 document". I don't think what the author is talking about is necessarily against either. HTML5 can continue its evolutions while "HTML6" (or something completely separate) exists alongside the traditional DOM, like the <canvas> example they reference or like WASM exists alongside JS. From this perspective, the article is about why it's a worthwhile time to make the new thing rather than why the new thing won't also have baggage in 20 years or why we should just throw everything current out the window as part of supporting the new thing.
- satvikpendem 1y agoIt can have such a reason to be the way it is, and still be bad.