11–20 of 89 posts
I want to be able to write C#, or Ruby, or python, and reference it on a page, and for it to run. Gosh that would be great. I wouldn't even mind if its a very limited version of the language.
Edit: confused why i'm downvoted... hmmm
just seems like a waste adding "html:" to all of the root/core elements.
- The file extension carry the type information (but may be missing)
- The Content-Type MIME too
- The actual data stream also (think $ file some-media)
- And html6 adds an attributeAaaaaannnnnndddddd I'm done. Thanks, but no thanks.
HTML will never be semantic. The whole idea should be scrapped. HTML is inextricably bound to CSS in 2014, and has become more and more about presentation and less and less about data. Which is fine. We have JSON and XML for data. I would rather see some cohesive standards for JSON data formats, because that is the future. HTML is just the glue between CSS and Ajax requests.
The web browser is a powerful sandboxed VM installed on virtually all Internet connected devices. And yet we a terrible toolkit for building applications on top of this VM (and I know it's because existing tools were built for hyperlinked documents and not proper stateful applications).
Also an interesting interesting topic are the different classes of these Internet applications. On one hand you have applications like Gmail, which are intended to reach a broad audience and should work on most "platforms" (substitute "web browser" for "platform" in this case). But you also have the traditional enterprise LOB application, where you may focus on one or two platforms and make that a "requirement".
I hate to shit on people's work[1] on HN because everyone else does it but I earnestly think this will get filed in the same bin as XHTML, aka "no web developer actually cares about this so no one will write it and it will die an awkward, forgotten death." HTML5 did some very important things. Mainly it wrestled back the web from plugins. Hey, remember Flash? Isn't that great! That in 2014 I can say "Remember Flash?"…
It's missing the lesson of XHTML. Namespaces and XML-correctness failed, what is wanted is easy to write HTML that is readable and rescueable by the browser if it is invalid. Namespaces are a clusterfuck when you just want to get a html-element with a parser, and they make writing code so much more complicated.
Also, the whole idea of elements that have no meaning for the browser misses the niceness of HTML5. Yes, we have now some elements that have only semantic meaning like the header element, but there is at least the option for browser to help with them. It is a standard set to build readable code, not fully customizable XML with no anchor in the browser. Really appreciated are the elements that use the browser, like audio and video, as you mentioned. That is missing here.
Maybe things like the media element are a good idea. Or maybe not, since it does not hurt to be explicit what you are specifying here, a video or an audio file - talking about semantic.
just feels backwards to me. the stuff seems like it should all be under the default html namespace and assumed. where as the other stuff may be better suited to be namespaced. just seems like a waste adding "html:" to all of the root/core elements.
just feels backwards to me. the stuff seems like it should all be under the default html namespace and assumed. where as the other stuff may be better suited to be namespaced. just seems like a waste adding "html:" to all of the root/core elements.