561–570 of 953 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say this like it wont be used to completely remove all user choice and be an utter disaster.
You’re going to own nothing and be happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We just need to stop making it do things it wasn't supposed to This is a thread about Google Docs. Your suggestion to the Docs team is to ... stop? Just shut down their product?
Just send LibreOffice files as attachments via your personal email server, what’s the problem? /s
[0] https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-online/
Then the Ajax.org/Cloud9 folks came along with their Ace editor[2], which was DOM-based and still very fast. We ended up merging the projects. edit to add: and switching to DOM rendering
Rik Arends[3] was one of the Ajax.org folks and he's been working on a WebGL-based code environment called Makepad[4], which is entirely built in Rust and has its own UI toolkit. He's complained a lot about how difficult it is to make a performant JS-based editing environment.
My point in all of this is just that there are absolutely tradeoffs in performance, accessibility, ease-of-development, internationalization, and likely other aspects. If raw performance is what you're going for, it's hard to beat just drawing on a canvas or using WebGL. Google Docs needs to worry about all of that other stuff, too, so I'll be interested to see how this shapes up.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Skywriter
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_(editor)
[3]: https://twitter.com/rikarends
[4]: https://makepad.dev
The Web started as a document display and delivery framework. Now it has turned into an application delivery framework, which uses the old document-rendering abilities to display the UI, with many quirks and workarounds, because DOM was never intended as a performant dynamic medium. With canvas and WebGL taking more and more, it will turn back into an X terminal, with more advanced network capabilities. If most impor…
You say this like it wont be used to completely remove all user choice and be an utter disaster.
most people don’t come to the web for choice, they come for the apps
It makes a hell of a lot of sense, even from a QA perspective alone. Canvas is going to be far more predictable as a rendering target than the wide swath of browsers they manage now. The DOM certainly has a place, but if you've looked at Google docs rendered output you'd notice it left web standards behind a long long time ago. This is an application which happens to be served on the web, not a traditional website. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a response to the point being made at the point where the quoted text originates, even though superficially it looks like it is. Please re-read the comment you're responding to.
Actually, it responds to the entire[1] train of thought that follows that statement. Please re-read what I am saying, and consider it in context. You are suggesting that Google work on updating the standards to make their desired use case work better. I am suggesting that Google's desired use case will never be served by document-oriented standards, and that is why it shouldn't mess with those standards. Again, the w…
That was the entire point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Displaying documents" and "displaying editable documents" are two completely different beasts. The web browser has never dealt well with displaying editable documents, the closest standard that exists is contentEditable and pretty much everyone agrees that it sucks and is not fit for complex use cases.
All web pages are editable currently, they are editable via Javascript. Not sure the distinction you are making is meaningful. The only thing we are missing is a good edit UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I offer Firefox as the solution.
Absolutely, Quantum was a big leap. But many people are devoted to chrome and so are developers. Many sites are still worse on Firefox than Chrome.
Chromium browsers do not allow you this choice. There, the philosophy seems to be that the web is a designer-driven layout medium and that the viewer should not have accessibility choices.
Btw, some of the "sites worse", if you're referring to Google, that's them just breaking things intentionally. You can sometimes work around it by specifying a different useragent and then things are fast again until they change things again.
As a browser, Firefox is standards compliant. I agree there are many applications that use a web interface as the GUI and a bunch were coded for IE6 or IE6 with ActiveX and don't display well (or at all) in Chrome. It really depends, but the problem isn't that Firefox follows standards, but that the developers did not follow standards.
The dom is really, really fast, we have spent decades refining the process and there is deep tooling to support it built right into the browser. What a bunch of nonsense.
Please don't call names in HN comments. Your post would be fine (well, a little unsubstantive and flamebaity, but nothing too serious) without the swipe at the end. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. We're trying for a bit higher quality of discussion here, if possible. We detached this subthread f…
My swipe was more at the argument, but this could be better, sorry.