3 ms·
A ridiculously cheap and powerful alternative to HTML (or any other static format for that matter), would be a bytecode format intended to be executed in a sand
by loup-vaillant 14y ago
A ridiculously cheap and powerful alternative to HTML (or any other static format for that matter), would be a bytecode format intended to be executed in a sandboxed virtual machine. Possibly something like Flash. That should give you all the bells and whistles you could possibly want with a document format.
Now, there still are some loose ends about various screen sizes, preferred font family and size, and of course allowing textual searches, but those parameters should be few enough to be less problematic that HTML is right now.
- pyre 14y agoReally? Flash is more secure than HTML? Maybe we should just embed Java applets in emails? This still doesn't solve the "click a link that takes them elsewhere" issue that was brought up.
- loup-vaillant 14y agoI did say "sandboxed", did I not? Just have your VM refuse to download anything before you click somewhere, and let it compute the relevant URL so it can show it to you the way Firefox does. If this is too harsh, then relax the restriction to only download to, say, the domain name of the current main URL. If this is still too harsh, then have a NoScript like button to relax restrictions manually, on a case by case basis. It would disable any form of cross scripting by default, which in my opinion is a better state of affairs than HTML alone is right now (now, you can embed an external image in a web page, and bam, Facebook knows what you read).