Re: Add support to ActionScript in HTML

The HTML specification does not mandate any particular script language.
Indeed, it does not require support for Javascript (aka ECMAScript). It is
up to the user agent (browser) vendor to decide what to support in the way
of scripting language, styling language, image formats, etc. So this is the
wrong forum for such a suggestion. You need to convince browser vendors to
support ActionScript. However, you should keep in mind that they are market
driven, and unless you can persuade them to add such a feature, they won't.
I'd say the chance they might support ActionScript is less than zero. Just
learn to love Javascript like the rest of us... (blech).

As for names. Names are funny things, often having to do with historical
legacy. While I agree that it keeps authors guessing, especially those that
author directly in HTML, you are just going to have to bear with this state
of affairs until HTML itself bites the dust.

Cheers,
Glenn


On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Carlos Hoyos <karlos1982@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> The W3C site is a hell to navigate, so I apologize in advance if this is
> not the proper place to submit a suggestion, and in that case, I hope that
> you can submit it to the proper authority.
>
> Currently, HTML supports the Javascript scripting language. A lot of
> people and developers would enjoy immensely if HTML also allowed to use
> ActionScript scripts. There's a library that does that,
> http://css.dzone.com/articles/write-actionscript-code-html
> but it requires a third party library, and it would be preferable if the
> HTML specification also included the option to specify ActionScript as a
> script language.
> There are many benefits of supporting ActionScript:
>
> 1. Javascript is not a good scripting language. The flaws and bad design
> choices of the language have been heavily documented here
> <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=javascript+sucks> and haven't been fixed in decades.
> 2. CSS is not a good technology, either, even if some of the worst flaws
> have been 'fixed' with CSS3. It takes days of work to do very simple tasks
> that can be done in minutes with technologies that are more than thirty
> years old, so any patent on them have already expired.
> 3. Actionscript is superior to both technologies, and it would be a waste
> of experience and talent of the huge pool of Flash developers if their
> knowledge became useless in the next few years for lack of technology
> support.
> 4. Supporting Actionscript would also allow to slowly phase out Javascript
> in the next decade, so that new developers will no longer have to deal with
> the pain of having to work with it.
>
> I apologize if I sound harsh, but my aim is  the long-term betterment of
> the life of humanity, and specifically, web developers, both from the
> present, past, and future. And in the best of the futures, javascript is
> nowhere to be seen. In its place, there's a scripting language that works
> and makes sense, and looks a lot like Python. In the meanwhile, though,
> adding support to ActionScript in HTML would be cheered by thousands of
> unhappy front-end developers.
>
> Thank you very much,
> Carlos
>
> PS. I also don't understand why the different HTML tags have to use
> different names to properties that have the same functionality.
> "href" vs "src", "value" vs "content", "name" vs "id"... it's chaotic,
> inconsistent, and needlessly complex.
>
>