W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Re: FYI, tag election links

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:13:35 -0700
To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <20121213191335.e8f10740.eric@bisonsystems.net>
John Kemp wrote:
> 
> For example, I believe that there has been a tremendous shift from 
> "declarative" to "imperative" with the transition to Javascript APIs 
> defining the web platform, and specifications that rely on algorithms 
> rather than defining a set of invariants.
> 

I wonder how tremendous that shift would have been, had XSLT support
arrived in more browsers years earlier; or Xforms support been added to
more than one browser, or HTML 5.  As it is, I can prototype MVC clients
in nice, declarative Xforms (and functional XSLT) and deploy them to the
real world...

http://www.google.com/search?q=xforms+javascript+library

...by selecting from myriad imperative implementations of same, proving
Xforms isn't exactly a failure on the Web, and that we live in an odd
world -- how do we go about crawling the Web looking for Xforms usage,
when in the wild, it mostly looks *exactly* like HTML + Javascript?

>
> I hope that in the rush to reform and to meet the very real needs of
> web developers, the TAG doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> 

+1

Some of us don't want the Web defined in terms of Javascript, because
that isn't how we want, or need, to understand the architecture. I can
teach HTML and URI to folks I couldn't begin to explain JS or HTTP to.
I find this low entry-barrier to be a feature, not a bug, of Web
architecture -- directly responsible for the teeming masses of Web
developers who would now willingly shut that gate behind them for the
sake of doing everything in Javascript from here on out.

Granted, the TAG needs to be receptive to their needs, but I also look
to TAG to be responsible stewards of those things which got us here, as
the fact that they *did* get us here seems to indicate some value worth
preserving.  I worry about how cavalier some are in suggesting we turn
our backs on two decades worth of proven success based on peer-reviewed
consensus forged around interoperable code.  Reform is fine, but let's
not get carried away, please.

-Eric
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 02:14:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 02:14:01 GMT