Re: HTML5's Offline-first Council of Trent
On 18/03/2016 03:52, Richard Maher wrote: I've found someone who has more credibility and form here and is willing to take the idea forward. Let's hope that someone also understands what it means to make a technical argument, without resorting to some House of Commons Tory Obxbridge debating style with thinly veiled ad-hominems. https://twitter.com/JoeSondow/status/692170578023862273 P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Re: [XHR]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > No, streams do not solve the problem of "how do you present a > partially-downloaded JSON object". They handle chunked data *better*, > so they'll improve "text" response handling, Also binary handling should be improved with streams. > but there's still the > fundamental problem that an incomplete JSON or XML document can't, in > general, be reasonably parsed into a result. Neither format is > designed for streaming. Indeed. > (This is annoying - it would be nice to have a streaming-friendly JSON > format. There are some XML variants that are streaming-friendly, but > not "normal" XML.) For XML there is SAX. However I don't think XML sees enough usage these days that it'd be worth adding native support for SAX to the platform. Better rely on libraries to handle that use case. While JSON does see a lot of usage these days, I've not heard of much usage of streaming JSON. But maybe others have? Something like SAX but for JSON would indeed be cool, but I'd rather see it done as libraries to demonstrate demand before we add it to the platform. / Jonas
Re: HTML5's Offline-first Council of Trent
Listen, you may not be here to make friends, but if you want to incite
change, you might try playing nicely. If you just want results, you'll have
greater success without your sarcasm and superiority complex.
Fresh start? If you make a good case, without calling the w3c a mafia,
people might actually engage this more seriously. As of right now, I can't
speak for everyone, but I definitely don't like your tone.
Thanks,
Nick Dugger
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 1:52 AM Anders Rundgren
wrote:
> On 2016-03-17 07:12, Richard Maher wrote:
> >> An even more powerful (but also ignored possibility) would be COMBINING
> the power
> >> of the Web and App worlds instead of fighting religious wars ("the Web
> is great"),
> >> where there are no winners, only lost opportunities.
> >
> > That's what plugins were for wan't it? And I still cry every night over
> the death of Applets :-(
> > (A single mutliplexed (static) TCP/IP full-duplex connection per
> user-agent!)
>
> Plugins were deprecated which (IMO) was OK since they had serious security
> issues, what's
> less satisfactory is removing features without consider some kind of
> reasonable replacement.
>
> Several other somewhat related features are currently also subject to
> removal/deprecation.
>
>
> >> It gets worse...if you are the Web tech leader then you are apparently
> free taking
> >> this "shortcut" (some people would rather characterize this as an
> intelligent use
> >> of available resources and competences), and get away with it as well:
> >> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/42#issuecomment-166705416
> >
> > C'mon Anders, do you blame them?
>
> Well, Google more or less wrote the "Grand Plan" and now they are
> defecting from it,
> while leaving everybody else with the old (non-working) plan and
> _severely_disadvantaged_.
>
>
> > Faced with the intractability, self-interest, and narcissism surrounding
> > the IOC^h^h^hW3C Gordian knot, are you really surprised that someone
> owning
> > the implementation will pull out their sword and opt for results over
> process?
>
> I (naively) thought that maybe _somebody_else_ (with more influence than a
> non-member like me), would be interested in taking a closer look at this
> powerful capability. I only seek a constructive discussion on what to do
> now.
>
> Anders
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-03-17 06:00, Richard Maher wrote:
> >
> > Hi Patrick (Congratulations on today) Technical Point follows: -
> >
> > On a merit-based resource allocation basis, the two most
> fundamental, essential,
> >
> > > and absolutely necessary HTML5 Web-App feature enhancements are: -
> >
> >
> > 1) Background GPS device/user tracking support
> > 2) Push API 1:M broadcast capability
> >
> > These are enabling technologies that will catapult HTML5 Web
> Apps into the
> >
> > > Native App heartland and single-handedly alter the
> development-tool and deployment
> > > strategies for Mobile App vendors around the world.
> >
> > An even more powerful (but also ignored possibility) would be
> COMBINING the power
> > of the Web and App worlds instead of fighting religious wars ("the
> Web is great"),
> > where there are no winners, only lost opportunities.
> >
> > It gets worse...if you are the Web tech leader then you are
> apparently free taking
> > this "shortcut" (some people would rather characterize this as an
> intelligent use
> > of available resources and competences), and get away with it as
> well:
> > https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/42#issuecomment-166705416
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > The reason these features do not appear on the W3C horizon is
> that they show-case online-first and are anathema to the Offline-First
> Mafia that is currently setting the agenda and feathering its own nest.
> >
> > Technically, I have to admit to having absolutely no idea how a
> W3C performance review would be conducted or how ROI on a given
> contributor's input could be measured. I am a simple man who just needs a
> couple more tools in the box in order to deliver the killer Web Apps my
> users are begging for.
> >
> > Where I come from, and certainly from my experience in London
> finance, it's all about getting the job done! You can have two heads and be
> the most obnoxious Maher in the world but you're paid to do a job and get
> around the Sir Humphrey Appleby speed humps on the road the progress in
> order to do it.
> >
> > I'm not here to make friends or see how many followers I can get
> on Twitter, and I apologize for being the only one without an original
> selfie of myself looking wistfully off camera, but I'm motivated by results
> and not married to the process.
> >
> > HTML5 - Web Apps "The journey is *NOT* the destination!
> >
> > On Wed, Mar
Re: HTML5's Offline-first Council of Trent
Nick, while we're waiting for Léonie to lecture you on
participation-criteria, etiquette, and social competence, let me call on
the late, great, Rodney Dangerfield to proxy my response: -
*Judge Smails*: You have worn out your welcome, sir!
*Czervik*: Is that so? Who made you Pope of this dump?
*Judge Smails*: Bushwood...a "dump"? Well, I'll guarantee you'll never be a
member here!
*Czervik*: Are you kidding? You think I'd join this crummy "snobatorium"?
Why, this whole place sucks!
Now that I think about it I haven't come across a black face here yet, very
few females, and not many Jewish names. Maybe it's still "too soon" for
Reformation references in the W3C Country Club? (BTW. On the FTF-jolly
stakes the IETF Club kicks your arse with Honolulu and Yokohama versus your
Sapporo and Lisbon.)
> Fresh start? If you make a good case, without calling the w3c a mafia,
people might actually engage this more seriously.
Rest assured, I am pulling out of these forums. (I'm just happy to know
that a softer gentler place continues to exist somewhere)
I've found someone who has more credibility and form here and is willing to
take the idea forward. Background GeoLocation was a massive issue before I
pinned my colours too it and is too important to the HTML5 Web App future
to be tarnished by collateral bigotry and prejudice.
But before I go, why do you all look and sound the same?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Nick Dugger wrote:
> Listen, you may not be here to make friends, but if you want to incite
> change, you might try playing nicely. If you just want results, you'll have
> greater success without your sarcasm and superiority complex.
>
> Fresh start? If you make a good case, without calling the w3c a mafia,
> people might actually engage this more seriously. As of right now, I can't
> speak for everyone, but I definitely don't like your tone.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick Dugger
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 1:52 AM Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-03-17 07:12, Richard Maher wrote:
>> >> An even more powerful (but also ignored possibility) would be
>> COMBINING the power
>> >> of the Web and App worlds instead of fighting religious wars ("the Web
>> is great"),
>> >> where there are no winners, only lost opportunities.
>> >
>> > That's what plugins were for wan't it? And I still cry every night over
>> the death of Applets :-(
>> > (A single mutliplexed (static) TCP/IP full-duplex connection per
>> user-agent!)
>>
>> Plugins were deprecated which (IMO) was OK since they had serious
>> security issues, what's
>> less satisfactory is removing features without consider some kind of
>> reasonable replacement.
>>
>> Several other somewhat related features are currently also subject to
>> removal/deprecation.
>>
>>
>> >> It gets worse...if you are the Web tech leader then you are apparently
>> free taking
>> >> this "shortcut" (some people would rather characterize this as an
>> intelligent use
>> >> of available resources and competences), and get away with it as well:
>> >> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/42#issuecomment-166705416
>> >
>> > C'mon Anders, do you blame them?
>>
>> Well, Google more or less wrote the "Grand Plan" and now they are
>> defecting from it,
>> while leaving everybody else with the old (non-working) plan and
>> _severely_disadvantaged_.
>>
>>
>> > Faced with the intractability, self-interest, and narcissism
>> surrounding
>> > the IOC^h^h^hW3C Gordian knot, are you really surprised that someone
>> owning
>> > the implementation will pull out their sword and opt for results over
>> process?
>>
>> I (naively) thought that maybe _somebody_else_ (with more influence than a
>> non-member like me), would be interested in taking a closer look at this
>> powerful capability. I only seek a constructive discussion on what to do
>> now.
>>
>> Anders
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Anders Rundgren <
>> anders.rundgren@gmail.com >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2016-03-17 06:00, Richard Maher wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Patrick (Congratulations on today) Technical Point follows: -
>> >
>> > On a merit-based resource allocation basis, the two most
>> fundamental, essential,
>> >
>> > > and absolutely necessary HTML5 Web-App feature enhancements are: -
>> >
>> >
>> > 1) Background GPS device/user tracking support
>> > 2) Push API 1:M broadcast capability
>> >
>> > These are enabling technologies that will catapult HTML5 Web
>> Apps into the
>> >
>> > > Native App heartland and single-handedly alter the
>> development-tool and deployment
>> > > strategies for Mobile App vendors around the world.
>> >
>> > An even more powerful (but also ignored possibility) would be
>> COMBINING the power
>> > of the Web and App worlds instead of fighting religious wars ("the
>> Web is great"),
>> > where there are no winners, only lost opportunities.
>> >
>> >
