4 ms·
Instead, why don't we eliminate the need for Apps in a browser to require HTML. Right now, our large scale app has one div inside the <body>. It's just an ancho
by Cshelton 12y ago
Instead, why don't we eliminate the need for Apps in a browser to require HTML. Right now, our large scale app has one div inside the <body>. It's just an anchor for our SPA built in React js. We should push for browsers that can launch from a .js file, rather than requiring html. Have a base UI.kit that can even keep css, or use javascript to stylize. I'd like the 'base' UI to be as skeleton and simple as possible. We can keep the <html> style markup, but with javascript first. Similar to what JSX does with React. This would also fix the DOM problem we are currently stuck with. This is a rough, quick typeup, thoughts though?
EDIT: and most importantly, get multi-threaded javascrip in the browser. Running the UI, events, and logic all on separate threads. Many observe patterns would most likely be used.
- Touche 12y ago> Instead, why don't we eliminate the need for Apps in a browser to require HTML. Accessibility.
- thomasfoster96 12y agoA canvas accessibility api would be great.
- Cshelton 12y agoTouche, love the user name. Yes, right now it would seem impossible and browsers would have to support backwards compatibility. What I'm saying is let browsers still support regular html sites. In addition though, be able to specify a 'javascript app'. I see no limiting reason in modern browsers why this would be an issue. At some point, the web has to move forward and say, 'sorry, if you are not running JS, we can't really support you'. Yes, I know the backlash that would come, but we've got to move forward, maybe there is a better way? I'm not sure. (My project does not require supporting anything below IE 11, it's the greatest blessing, ever.)
- pjmlp 12y agoAll major native UI toolkits support accessibility as required by many governments.