3 ms·
I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're getting at. > What we're after here is _connecting_ the high and low levels. Creating a fully descriptive map t
by MatthewPhillips 13y ago
I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're getting at.
> What we're after here is _connecting_ the high and low levels. Creating a fully descriptive map that has texture, color, and major features marked and named.
A low level AppCache API doesn't exist though. So there is no connection to happen, right? I realize people wish AppCache had been designed differently. I wish Touch Events had been designed differently. The web is littered with mistakes, I don't think a manifesto is going to prevent them from occurring.
What is the essence of this manifesto? I read it as favoring low level APIs. Ideally we could have both but there aren't the resources to make that practical.
- slightlyoff 13y agoThis misunderstands what happens inside implementations. There ARE low-level bits "down there", but they aren't spec'd. That what the Navigation Controller is: a spec for the low-level bits. As a part of that process (and Web Components before it), the goal isn't to throw out what has come before (we don't get that luxury out here on successful, non-proprietary platforms), but to re-cast it in the light of a lower-level thing that explains it. You can go the other way too. Noodle on this to get a sense for it: how much of the <audio> element can be implemented with some JS and the Web Audio spec? Since those connections make sense, why isn't <audio> spec'd in terms of Web Audio, such that you can plug in/out the bits you need when you need something slightly different?
- MatthewPhillips 13y agoSo you are saying that the low level bits should eventually be spec'd (but not necessarily first)? That is what this manifesto is about? If so, I can agree with that, but wish it was more explicitly stated in the manifesto.