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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulNSlES1Fds

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Andrea Rendine <
master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bobby,
> stop talking about "comfort zone" and "scared programmers" and start acting
> like a person who considers anybody else worth discussing with, instead of
> a bunch of stupid people acting for their own interest.
> What you propose is as complex and impractical as a JS framework is.
> Moreover, an author should either learn very well SQL or learn "your"
> variant of the language which is translated into SQL statements, something
> you seem not to consider.
>
> > Not ad hominem.  I’ve literally had developers tell me everyone should
> learn Javascript.  Example:
> https://twitter.com/yoavweiss/status/582490158496419840
> > That's obviously a horrible idea.  Why would anyone encourage millions of
> other people to do more work?   Everyone’s time is limited.  Why should a
> fashion-blogger spend time to learn JS to get a responsive high-speed
> site?  They have other things to worry about, like next season’s
> collections.
> I strongly hope you are joking. If the fashion blogger does not know how to
> work with JS, s/he will either stick with ready-made sites or blogs, or ask
> to someone capable to build the site for him/her. It's not just because
> anyone can be a fashion blogger, that anyone can build a website too. The
> former activity needs no skills (apart from some taste, while the
> definition of "taste" is quite non-uniform), while the latter needs
> technical skills, And your proposal will need technical skills as well -
> not on the JS side, but in HTML.
>
> > I was talking with a Tumblr power user a couple of days ago about this
> and she confirmed that all Tumblr kids pretty much know the basics of HTML,
> somewhat fewer people know CSS, and nobody knows Javascript.
> <sarcasm>Well, this means that we must also simplify CSS, don't you think
> so? all that stuff about media queries, about animation and transitions,
> pseudo-elements, pseudo-classes, how can poor Tumblr users learn
> that?</sarcasm>
> <sarcasm type="hard">It's a real luck that Tumblr kids, who obviously
> constitute the bulk of modern authorship, know HTML well enough to also
> learn your complex two-way control/view model (I still find it complex
> somehow, I'm not as smart as they are of course. Evidence: I'm stuck in my
> JS comfort zone).</sarcasm>
>
> I repeat the assumption I did in my private message, that you haven't
> probably had the time to read. You seem to swing freely between saying "no"
> to JS frameworks and saying "no" to JS as a whole. When and why you did
> elaborate the idea that JS is not part of Website building? When did you
> decide that web pages have to be HTML and CSS and SQL, while half the HTML
> we have now is also defined in terms of "objects" with "properties" and
> "methods"? Want to say no to frameworks? Stick to basic properties for
> objects.
>
> Keep on fighting against JS, and you will look like someone who is trying
> to abandon CSS in favor of <font> tags and @width/@height attributes
> because they're "simpler".
>
> 2015-04-02 10:23 GMT+02:00 Rimantas Liubertas <rimantas@gmail.com>:
>
> > > I gave a limited one-page idea for now, so design faults should be
> > obvious. This will take years, but right now it’s looking like there
> aren’t
> > fundamental problems with the proposal.
> >
> > There are fundamental problems with your proposal, namely:
> > 1) it relies on some undefined magic
> > 2) it changes HTML to something entirely different.
> > 3) you assume that those not willing to learn Javascript will somehow
> know
> > how to use the features you propose without learning. How?
> >
> > > That's obviously a horrible idea. Why would anyone encourage millions
> of
> > other people to do more work? Everyone’s time is limited. Why should a
> > fashion-blogger spend time to learn JS to get a responsive high-speed
> site?
> > They have other things to worry about, like next season’s collections.
> > >
> > > The best experience should be on by default, and you need a built-in
> MVC
> > framework in HTML for that to happen.
> > And fashion designer will be able to use it without learning? Also it is
> > not clear, how are you going to separate M from V from C if it is all
> HTML.
> > > You’ll find that the kind of proposal I’m putting out there is the only
> > viable solution.
> >
> > Your proposal is just a bit of magical thinking, not any solution. I am
> > not sure what problem are you trying to solve.
> > Is that ‘allow non-technical people to build web-sites’? Then you are
> > solving it at the wrong level.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rimantas
> >
> >
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 15:02:37 UTC