Re: The Extensible Web Manifesto [via Extensible Web Community Group]

Brian Kardell [2013-06-13T11:50]:
>> * giving more freedom (power) to a certain class of JavaScript developers. New "bourgeoisie".
> 
> I think that already exists, we're just broadening it.  An immense
> number of people use HTML and CSS, a smaller but still quite large
> number of people use jQuery, a considerably smaller number still build
> plugins and so on....  I disagree with the "bourgeoisie" connotation.

Sorry for using a term without defining it. Bourgeoisie = "the (capitalist) class who own most of society's wealth and means of production." And you are saying the same thing yourself: "I think that already exists, we're just broadening it." to my "power to JS devs". That was exactly my point. Or if you prefer switching from the Browsers bourgeoisie to the JS bourgeoisie. I have the feeling you are perceiving my usage of the term as something to shut down the idea, when I'm using it to describe a social structure of the Web.

The proposal as it is formulated is interesting because it creates more surface indeed. *Maybe* it's a step in the right direction. We have to try to understand. I'm just not bells and whistles. :) Let's say it's my nature of "let's experiment and understand", more than "let's do it, it will solve everything" ;)

>> * alienating non JavaScript developers (sense of feeling powerless)
> 
> I totally disagree - this **greatly** empowers the average
> non-javascript developer by allowing them greater/faster access to
> proposals for higher-level things that deliver them immediate value
> now - which can in turn provide information about use-cases and
> adoption back into the system.

means of production -> powerless. I maintain :)

If it will better than the browser control, it was the hope of extensions/addons/widgets, which had some success (some rich ecosystems) and some failures (complete lack of interoperability in between browsers).


> It's variable, right?  It could be much shorter (<main> I expect could
> have happened relatively quickly and with less controversy) and it
> could be considerably longer.

How so. <main> was *quick* by any standards. How could you make it faster? By that I mean implemented as a real element working in a interoperable way in all clients. Maybe I have missed something. It might not be the best example. SVG (took a very long time) or SMIL (still in agony) would be more interesting use cases. Or APNG (Animated PNG). Or like the discussion going on about metadata in images (EXIF, IPTC, etc).


> There is an important difference
> however in that the intermediate forms/slang provide actual value in
> the meantime.

By value you mean, the right to play and experiment? If yes, I agree with you. It's a good way to have feedback. To encourage JS developers to enhance the platform.


> Is it better to wait years to get something which we
> know will be imperfect, or is it better to have usable proposals
> evolving over the same number of years?  I'd chose the later any day
> and wager that the net result will be considerably better.

My answer will not please you ;) 
false dichotomy with four propositions, you can have a cross in each box and it still valid.

+-------------------------------+
|           |imperfect | usable |
+-------------------------------+
|wait years |          |        |
+-------------------------------+
|evolving   |          |        |
+-------------------------------+

What is attractive in the proposition of the Manifesto is a bigger set of proposals with the possibility of experimenting *might* results in more usable standardization. Though it's not an obligation, but it seems to be a more likely outcome. We will see later. No crystal ball. :)



PS: Thanks Brian, I start to figure out what the extensible Web Manifesto. I still think the text is misleading. But the ideas behind are worth exploring.


-- 
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 17:43:10 UTC