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

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Bobby Mozumder <mozumder@futureclaw.com>
wrote:

>
> > 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
>

To me it sounds a quite elegant solution to use web components to extend
the existing elements, for example by using the is attribute, to allow them
to actually fetch a specific resource from web as you suggested. Using this
technique would also allow other developers to extend the new behaviour in
order to embrace various specific use cases.

-sandro



> ---
> 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 Monday, 23 March 2015 12:47:28 UTC