On 3/30/2015 10:02 PM, Bobby Mozumder wrote:
One thing I’m interested in is to see more technical discussions > around this idea. Like, very specific issues that show a design or
> concept flaw. It’s only been about 10 days since I proposed this and
> I haven’t received much in that area. (I did change one thing to >
split MREF from HREF based on feedback about people wanting backwards >
compatibility.)
Technical discussion is the last step of the process. The reason why
people haven't provided technical feedback is because you have failed to
motivate your proposal.
Instead, I’m mostly getting a lot of “I’m scared!” or “Everyone > should get a PhD in Javascript like I did!” which obviously isn’t >
going to happen. So, if there are technical faults with the proposal >
here, definitely list them. (or preferably in the Github, where I > can
keep track of issues directly)
Attacking your detractors with ad hominems is a great way to get
yourself ignored. People aren't saying those things--they're questioning
the utility of your proposal in the first place. You take it for granted
that HTML needs a complex, SQL-based MVC framework. You take it for
granted that JS is the devil and should be avoided. You appear to take
it for granted that using JS frameworks is a problem that needs to be
solved. These views are not commonly held on this mailing list, and
you're completely ignoring the feedback which is, in effect, questioning
these assumptions.
We need to be able to advance the web without going through > Javascript. It’s a mistake to assume that JS is a fundamental part
> of the web. The web is optimized for hypertext document processing,
> and most people use it to read content online. This proposal fixes a
> remaining issue with that.
Serious question: why? What benefit does it bring? That JS is bad is not
a self-evident proposition.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
