Re: [whatwg] Some Clarification on CML Proposal

Hi,Thanks for responding.  I don't think you have the right picture as to what I was proposing.  I'll try to clear it up a bit.  I was actually proposing a new markup language referred to as content markup language.  The hypertext part of it isn't that important.  CML would has the linking capability, it's really nothing.  The batch infrastructure I was talking about is as simple as text batch files containing the source path information of multiple object source files, such as bitmaps, jpegs, text files, apps, etc...  I think all that is required by the HTML team is to create a batch file for every appliance that is needed with respect to the two tags, multiple type attributes, and subattributes, and the line sequencing shouldn't be too much of a problem either.  I think this solution would completely phase out HTML all together, as it can pretty much do anything a web developer would need, even cold fusion class web applications.  You shouldn't be so concerned about all the technical html bullshit, there are no headers, and footers, only page coordinates, and source files.  As far as the digital container part of it, there isn't any container process involved, I just thought a high def bitmap solution might work well for field objects.  Basically, taking a bitmap object, and applying a border, text space, etc.., for use as the actual graphical object for the input field, for example.  So I figured that the standard field/table graphics that are produced by html are produced as bitmap objects, basically, and that a bitmap image could theoretically be used as a field object within a form graphically, and with the input text space applied.  So I thought the html team might just set it up to work that way.  I think it's a worthwhile option in the www world.  Like I said, I don't have much experience doing html, but please let me know what you think.  I wouldn't mind working with someone on this to get it deployed, if possible.  I can send a pdf diagram to give you a better picture of the whole thing, if you like.  Just let me know.Later,Jacob 

    On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 6:04 PM, Roger Hågensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no> wrote:
 

 On 2016-10-05 08:17, Jacob Villarreal wrote:
 > I was proposing a really simple markup language.  I call it content 
markup language (CML).

You do realize that HTML stands for Hyper Text Markup Language right? 
Adding a markup language to a markup language is illogical, it is better 
to improve the existing markup language or create a new markup language 
instead.

 > It implements a simple object-oriented content markup infrastructure 
which treats every page element as an object.

This sounds like it might be better served by Javascript which is object 
oriented.

 > It consists of a simple batch html infrastructure with only four 
batch file types for forms, fields, menus, and submenus 
(.frm/.fld/.mnu/.smn).  .... All text objects would be text data.  All 
other objects would be treated in the standard manner, but would be 
applied at the corresponding page coordinate. ... the table, and field 
html elements are bitmap objects ...

This sounds overtly complicated. Also if things are purely bitmaps then 
that would cause issues with screen readers, there are enough issues 
with tables as it is, if they become bitmaps they'll be a huge pain in 
the ass (more than currently).

By the sound of it these file types are container formats, why would you 
put a PNG image file inside a container file? Server side filetype 
negotiation would need to be redesigned to handle this as well.

Perhaps HTML imports is what could be the solution you are seeking (or 
needing), it's still a draft though
http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/imports/
But Mozilla has decided to not support it (that was in 2014 though).

But there is also Javascript imports
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import
"The import statement is used to import functions, objects or primitives 
that have been exported from an external module, another script, etc."
And sounds closer to some of the stuff you mentioned by the sound of it.
Chrome an Firefox should support import, and Edge is in the process of 
adding modules.
https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/05/17/es6-modules-and-beyond/#PQc593TJJwqRbpO4.97
But the specs are still not complete yet as far as I can tell.

A "modular" web page where a header and footer and menu and other parts 
can reside in different files without the need for server side scripting 
is very close.

In the meantime have you tried iframe with the seamless attribute and 
some javascript?



-- 
Roger Hågensen, Freelancer, http://skuldwyrm.no/

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 01:49:09 UTC