W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [whatwg] HTML6 proposal for single-page apps without Javascript

From: Bobby Mozumder <mozumder@futureclaw.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:31:24 -0400
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <4DEFB850-4F17-4AF8-80B3-7430C3F58954@futureclaw.com>
To: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:
> The buzz mostly comes from throwing of "HTML6" into the title. HTML5 is a
> buzzword and this creates new buzz for the "next version" to act as
> click-bait for ad views. It also went viral from the mention since people
> were mocking the idea of HTML6 (and the single-page app system proposed.)
> As far as I know, HTML6 won't ever be an actual thing for any foreseeable
> time to come. HTML5 is now the "Living Standard" of HTML and will continue
> on indefinitely until it dies.

My understanding was that WHATWG defines the living standard, and W3C creates versioned snapshots of it?  I see there’s an editors’ draft of HTM5.1 being discussed on W3C. 

> The idea is interesting yes, however it currently ends up in a sticky
> situation. You are recreating custom elements using HTML only and they
> aren't as expansive. Most of the conversation I have seen around this topic
> (while it is little) boils down to this as to why it isn't worth having.
> Your thoughts on JS Frameworks all trying to do this and failing, is why
> new standards are being made to address it. These are the pieces of web
> components [1]. Once full browser support exists for these JS will have
> direct power over what the frameworks are doing under the hood. With the
> bonus of any frameworks using the standards creating inter-compatible
> components with other technologies if they do things well enough.
> For right now, the proper move isn't to get rid of JS for these actions but
> let browser vendors know that developers what the web component features.
> -Garbee
> [1] http://webcomponents.org/ <http://webcomponents.org/>

I see Web Components as targeted more towards advanced GUI widgets.  If you look at the examples that’s what they all are.  They’re not enhancing very basic HTML elements.

This proposal is meant to enhance existing HTML elements.  Dynamically updating <ARTICLE> and <P> and <H1> elements would be extremely useful for the 75 million Wordpress sites and 200 million Tumblr blogs out there that treat web pages as basic documents.  Do we really need to break semantics by creating custom <PAPER-ARTICLE> and <NG-P> and <B-H1> elements?  

Web components will continue to exist, but existing HTML elements should still be enhanced for modern use models.  People already know the basic HTML elements, they should be able to use them.

And besides, there’s still the problem of having to download huge power inefficient Javascript libraries.

Bobby Mozumder
FutureClaw Magazine
mozumder@futureclaw.com <mailto:mozumder@futureclaw.com>
www.futureclaw.com <http://www.futureclaw.com/>
twitter.com/futureclaw <https://www.twitter.com/futureclaw>
www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder>

Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 12:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:12 UTC