> On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:11 PM, Martin Janecke <whatwg....@prlbr.com> wrote: > > On 02.04.15 04:59, Bobby Mozumder wrote: > >> The best experience should be on by default, and you need a built-in MVC >> framework in HTML for that to happen. > > That's something you take for granted, but other people don't. Apparently, > people want to see the claim substantiated. > > I understood that the motivation for your proposal is a shorter loading time > for content on webpages. Your proposal might be one way to achieve this, but > to me it's not obvious that we *need* a built-in MVC framework in HTML to > make content load quicker, or that it is the best way to do it. Your proposal > is a pretty huge, much encompassing thing for a very particular problem.
I’m open to other solutions, and looked at several other proposed solutions as previously mentioned. For my solution I gave: 1. Allows high-speed dynamically loaded webpages via JSON APIs. Makes the web as fast as native apps. 2. Doesn’t require initial loading of an external Javascript framework (or multiple frameworks) 3. HTML only - broadening usability. Doesn’t require the web developer to code in Javascript. 4. Allows advanced Javascript developers to tinker with model data directly via its own model-access API if needed 5. Stateful model object. Browsers can manage this model data if needed. (save it for offline use, etc..) I get that my proposal is a huge change, but I don’t see any other path to hitting these goals other than putting in MVC in HTML. You have any other ideas or other frameworks? > Are you going to create a working demonstration/polyfill for your proposal, > so that people can try it, as has been suggested? I would recommend Angular with some of its directives as probably the closest polyfill to this in terms of the view layer. >> On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Joshua Cranmer <pidgeo...@verizon.net> wrote: >> […] >> >>> Serious question: why? What benefit does it bring? That JS is bad is not a >>> self-evident proposition. >> >> You’re asking people to learn Javascript, an MVC framework, and its >> associated templating system, to fix a basic user experience problem with >> the web. > > Bobby, you are the one who suggests that people should learn an MVC > framework, aren't you? > > Also, I think we have to remind ourselves that when you say "a basic user > experience problem with the web" you mean "long loading time". I think naming > the problem you're trying to solve is important so that people can help > solving it. Or else we're just talking about a concept of yours and nobody > really knows why anymore. Yes indeed. This solution is specifically targeted towards that problem. This interaction lag is something noticeable when you deal with native apps vs. the web. When using a regular web page, people know you’re dealing with a web page, instead of something native. Another undesirable characteristic of the web compared to native apps is layout reflows, but this can be addressed separately. >> I was talking with a Tumblr power user a couple of days ago about this and >> she confirmed that all Tumblr kids pretty much know the basics of HTML, >> somewhat fewer people know CSS, and nobody knows Javascript. Tumblr >> maintains about 200 million sites. > > Imagine you or someone else indeed made that polyfill some people asked you > to provide. Tumblr could easily include that script on every Tumblr blog or > make this a one-click option for authors, right? > > So with that polyfill all authors of the 200 million Tumblr sites could make > use of your idea without knowing any JavaScript and before your proposal has > made it into HTML. > > Sounds like making that polyfill would be a good idea, doesn't it? And if it > proofs useful indeed and more popular than alternatives, it could be included > in the HTML standard. You know what would be better than a polyfill? If the browser vendors tackled the issue directly. But I suspect that when all is said and done, they’ll eventually converge on this solution anyways, where they implement an MVC framework in the browser based on declarative HTML model definitions. -bobby --- Bobby Mozumder Editor-in-Chief FutureClaw Magazine mozum...@futureclaw.com <mailto:mozum...@futureclaw.com> +1-240-745-5287 www.futureclaw.com <http://www.futureclaw.com/> twitter.com/futureclaw <https://www.twitter.com/futureclaw> www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mozumder>
