W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2015

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

From: Barry Smith <bearzteez@live.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:02:03 -0400
Message-ID: <BAY176-DS9D7504F153E59F0925492C3F70@phx.gbl>
To: <whatwg@whatwg.org>

I try to read every one of these mailing list emails,,, even though I don't 
respond.  However,  I think it is crying shame that the new <details> and 
other Interactive elements are not supported across all browsers.  The 
<details> and the <dialog> elements are a great way to bypass some 
javascript.  As a note to all browser vendors;  Get with the program

Barry Smith
Growing Web Developer

From: "Andrea Rendine" <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:50 PM
To: "WHATWG" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML6 proposal for single-page apps without Javascript

> It's sad indeed, as it seems that best practices are seldomly followed and
> poor coding is the way.
> However,
>> some functionality ordinarily provided by JavaScript that now can be done
> by HTML5, e.g. the details tag and progress tag
> Actually <progress> is "native" only in its attribute definition and
> default rendering. It still requires JS in order to access its @value in
> write mode.
> On the other hand, I suppose that complete implementation of <details> is
> delayed by the fact that it's defined in terms of shadow DOM, and no real
> DOM adjusting is expected for it. Not every browser is ready for this
> further level of interface, probably.
> 2015-03-28 3:45 GMT+01:00 Michael A. Peters <mpeters@domblogger.net>:
>> On 03/27/2015 06:51 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> I've been reading through the discussion thread, all of which seems to
>>> jump immediately into the weeds of specific details of the proposal.
>>> I'm amazed that nobody has yet commented on the implicit premise, which
>>> I read as:
>>> - JavaScript is a processing pig
>>> - with the addition of a few, well-defined constructs to HTML, with
>>> support from browsers, we could do a lot of what we want (or what people
>>> are doing) - without the overhead imposed by JavaScript
>>> To me, this seems like a very good thing.  It seems like:
>>> - It's getting harder and harder to do simple things.  Too many
>>> JavaScript frameworks and libraries.  Too much complexity. Authoring
>>> should not require extensive programming skills. (Whatever happened to
>>> the read/write web?).
>>> - JavaScript seems to encourage poor programming style, or at least
>>> resource-intensive programming.  It seems like 2/3 of the web pages I
>>> visit either freeze up, or just take incredibly long to load. Granted,
>>> that a lot of this is this stems from all the little click monitoring
>>> apps, and widgets, and who knows what else people put on their pages -
>>> and waiting for those various sites to respond - but it's the
>>> proliferation of more and more JavaScript that enables this.
>> In HTML5 some functionality ordinarily provided by JavaScript that now 
>> can
>> be done by HTML5, e.g. the details tag and progress tag, is still not
>> universally supported by modern browsers requiring JavaScript fallback.
>> I don't know why it takes the browsers so long to implement, but it does.
>> The problem with JavaScript is that fewer and fewer web devs care. Rather
>> than picking a framework (like jQuery) and sticking with it, they 
>> copypasta
>> JS they find around the web (often in violation of the license) and add
>> whatever framework that snippet depends upon.
>> Few people care about passing their JS through tools like JSLint, and 
>> many
>> pages still have dozens of external JS references as well as numerous
>> inline scripts.
>> They just don't care. And that is hard to fix with standards because they
>> don't care.
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2015 09:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:30 UTC