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

Re: FYI, tag election links

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:41:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jdDkfDay5+da-g0AcEzHymTs3TkJgnCmNfeNhSE-Jn_Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Cc: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>wrote:

> 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
>
>
I think that that is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding what what
folks like myself would advocate.  I have the greatest respect for TBL and
the folks who got us here and for the historic role and organization W3C
itself, including (especially earlier) architectural efforts.  At the same
time, that doesn't mean that we cannot disagree or debate things - that's
how they get better.  It seems to me it would to be difficult to argue that
things that are being discussed in the blogs above are unimportant --- and
if TAG is unconcerned with them or quiet on them but they are driving a lot
of growth on the Web - where would that leave us?  I think in a bad place
where at least the perception of the value of W3C in the minds of many
average developers wanes and the obvious demand drives things in other
directions that would be far less than ideal for the health of the Web
itself...

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 02:42:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 02:42:20 GMT