- From: Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:43:57 -0500
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 3/30/2015 10:02 PM, Bobby Mozumder wrote: > One thing I’m interested in is to see more technical discussions > around this idea. Like, very specific issues that show a design or > concept flaw. It’s only been about 10 days since I proposed this and > I haven’t received much in that area. (I did change one thing to > split MREF from HREF based on feedback about people wanting backwards > compatibility.) Technical discussion is the last step of the process. The reason why people haven't provided technical feedback is because you have failed to motivate your proposal. > Instead, I’m mostly getting a lot of “I’m scared!” or “Everyone > should get a PhD in Javascript like I did!” which obviously isn’t > going to happen. So, if there are technical faults with the proposal > here, definitely list them. (or preferably in the Github, where I > can keep track of issues directly) Attacking your detractors with ad hominems is a great way to get yourself ignored. People aren't saying those things--they're questioning the utility of your proposal in the first place. You take it for granted that HTML needs a complex, SQL-based MVC framework. You take it for granted that JS is the devil and should be avoided. You appear to take it for granted that using JS frameworks is a problem that needs to be solved. These views are not commonly held on this mailing list, and you're completely ignoring the feedback which is, in effect, questioning these assumptions. > We need to be able to advance the web without going through > Javascript. It’s a mistake to assume that JS is a fundamental part > of the web. The web is optimized for hypertext document processing, > and most people use it to read content online. This proposal fixes a > remaining issue with that. Serious question: why? What benefit does it bring? That JS is bad is not a self-evident proposition. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 16:44:46 UTC