Hi Bobby - I’m going to keep my response brief as I don’t want to get sucked 
into this one too deep:

> all Tumblr kids pretty much know the basics of HTML
What you’ve proposed is not simple HTML, they won’t learn it.

> Javascript people are going to be happy with their existing selection of MVC 
> frameworks, so why would they want anything new like this?
Most of the JS devs I work with would love a new framework which works 
differently to the existing range of frameworks because everyone’s got their 
own idea of the best approach.  The beauty of the world today is that none of 
these are so deeply embedded that you’re stuck with them.

> This will take years, but right now it’s looking like there aren’t 
> fundamental problems with the proposal
My fundamental problem with this proposal is that it doesn’t blend well with 
the HTML we have - this group puts a lot of effort into backward compatibility 
because the web needs it.

If you really think this structure is what devs want then write a polyfill 
script that any noob can copy & paste (e.g. <script 
src=“www.//futurcrlaw.com/mvc-pollyfil.js”></script>) to add all these features 
to any browser currently in the wild.  Then work hard to persuade the "Tumblr 
kids” to care about things like performance & teach them all to use MVC using 
your polyfill.  If you really think it needs to be implemented in the browser 
write a browser plugin which makes it more efficient, then you’ve got some kind 
of case for this being a useful feature.

Even if everyone loved it this feature could not go into HTML spec and be 
adopted by developers without a polyfill.

If you really think that all browser vendors represented in this group are 
wrong then the answer’s simple - write your own browser which contains this 
feature and repeat the browser wars “hey, use my browser because it supports 
this feature no other browsers want”.

All the best.

Mat Carey

P.S. While you’re at it could you add a feature so I can forget any CSS I’ve 
ever known … something like <font color=“red” size=“3”> would be really simple 
for the Tumblr kids to learn. :)

> On 2 Apr 2015, at 03:59, Bobby Mozumder <mozum...@futureclaw.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Joshua Cranmer <pidgeo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> I gave a limited one-page idea for now, so design faults should be obvious.  
> This will take years, but right now it’s looking like there aren’t 
> fundamental problems with the proposal.  Most of the unnecessary arguments 
> against it boil down to people just stuck in their comfort-zone, and those 
> people aren’t the target audience for this proposal anyways.  Javascript 
> people are going to be happy with their existing selection of MVC frameworks, 
> so why would they want anything new like this?
> The mistake Javascript developers are making is that they make the assumption 
> that everybody else is a Javascript developer.
>>> 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.
> Not ad hominem.  I’ve literally had developers tell me everyone should learn 
> Javascript.  Example: https://twitter.com/yoavweiss/status/582490158496419840
> That's obviously a horrible idea.  Why would anyone encourage millions of 
> other people to do more work?   Everyone’s time is limited.  Why should a 
> fashion-blogger spend time to learn JS to get a responsive high-speed site?  
> They have other things to worry about, like next season’s collections.  
> The best experience should be on by default, and you need a built-in MVC 
> framework in HTML for that to happen.
>>> 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.
> 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.  
> 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.
> Given all that, what’s your proposal to put forth an app-like high-speed 
> responsive web experience without using Javascript?  Because any plan that 
> includes “Need to know Javascript” will fail.
> You’ll find that the kind of proposal I’m putting out there is the only 
> viable solution.
> -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>

Reply via email to