3 ms·
Not "a cleaner tool than the browser" a cleaner layout spec. Plus you will have to build a CSS compatibility layer on top. Hard but worthwhile. Sort of thing Ad
by justincormack 14y ago
Not "a cleaner tool than the browser" a cleaner layout spec. Plus you will have to build a CSS compatibility layer on top. Hard but worthwhile. Sort of thing Adobe might work on.
- IgorPartola 14y ago> Not "a cleaner tool than the browser" a cleaner layout spec. Yes, agreed. Though the next thing that we might want to tackle is the whole concept of a web page. Seems like storing application state in a URL is a terrible thing, yet it is so convenient for some use cases. This might mess with the idea of a "browser" more since you wouldn't be "browsing" applications, you'd be running them. > Plus you will have to build a CSS compatibility layer on top. Hard but worthwhile. Yes, definitely. I can't imagine anything like this taking off without a compatibility layer. However, I think, the compatibility layer could be just HTML, this new CSS replacement, some JavaScript, and a server-side compiler. > Sort of thing Adobe might work on. Are you being sarcastic?
- justincormack 14y agoActually I wasn't entirely, they have a lot of experience on print rendering (PostScript, InDesign), and seem to have HTML interest now but are not really attached to CSS per se. Suspect however they are not...