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

> On Apr 3, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Christopher Rolfe <christopher.rolfe198@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Looking through the examples on github I find myself quickly confused even
> looking at the basic examples. We seem to be declaring models in the head
> and then using them throughout the body in a complex manner.

I agree that my example was too complex.  I simplified the example & rewrote much of the documentation.  Please check the Github if it’s any clearer.  Do let me know if it isn’t.  I definitely want it to be understandable.

> Another issue to consider is this. The idea that MVC suits everyone has
> already been brought up, but what of this, the idea that someone tries to
> do something that you haven't considered?

Like what?  Javascript would still be available.

> You haven't really mentioned much about how Javascript fits into this new
> system, this proposal isn't going to be the end of JavaScript. You've said
> that callbacks will be accessible for certain actions but it still seems a
> little raw.
> 
> For example, is it possible to update values within a model from
> JavaScript, you've said you'll expand on that section later.

Yes.  This documentation will take time, perhaps a good year before testing can even begin.  I'm still at the early concept stages.

> Another potential consideration is SEO. How is the url affected when you
> click a link, you give an example of when an mref link is clicked more data
> is pulled in, how is the url affected? Would you use something like the
> HTML push state to change the url when mref links are clicked? Is there a
> way to define this etc.

Yes the HREF gets pushed onto the URL with pushState.  In the <A>, there would be both an MREF and an HREF.  The MREF for the model data, and the HREF for the URL pushState, and for sharing, etc..

> My last point I guess echoes what a few people have already said. What's
> the point of this, who is this targeted at and why.
> 
> Is the average Joe really going to take their time to learn a complex form
> of XML/HTML if they aren't going to learn JavaScript. I think not.

Again, the point is to increase HTML's interaction responsiveness without going into Javascript.

I think people are familiar with the idea of using Templates.  If you look at Tumblr’s basic users, they already use templates, and their templates look like this:

 <title>{Title}</title>

Compare it to this proposal, which would be:

 <title model=‘title’></title>

So, they’re not that far off.  Every CMS I’ve seen has some kind of template language, so the concept of templates should already be familiar to web developers.  In fact I believe more people would know templating than they know Javascript.

Also, these other template syntax isn’t valid HTML, while this would be. 

> As I said I build websites myself and the majority that I build are not
> Single Page Applications, I'd wonder how many out there are and really do
> we need to change HTML to suit what I suspect would be a minority of sites.
> 
> Good luck and I hope you can understand the concerns I've raised.


Yep. Again, if there are any usability concerns, let me know.  I’m trying to avoid bad design like:

 <script type=“application/javascript”>

When it should have been:

 <script type=“javascript”>

Or just:

 <script>

That sort of thing.  Some languages, like Python, were designed with usability testing, and any improvement in HTML should be done with that in mind.

-bobby
---
Bobby Mozumder
Editor-in-Chief
FutureClaw Magazine
mozumder@futureclaw.com <mailto:mozumder@futureclaw.com>
+1-240-745-5287
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 Sunday, 5 April 2015 09:10:30 UTC