> On Apr 2, 2015, at 4:23 AM, Rimantas Liubertas <riman...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > There are fundamental problems with your proposal, namely: > 1) it relies on some undefined magic
I believe that’s called “programming”. > 2) it changes HTML to something entirely different. To what? HTML already has things like <SCRIPT> and other features not related to hypertext markup. Besides, where’s the rule that say “HTML needs to only be this..” ? Artificial constraints are unnecessary. > 3) you assume that those not willing to learn Javascript will somehow know > how to use the features you propose without learning. How? They use HTML, which is far more widespread than Javascript. There’s a reason this proposal has gone viral outside of this list. -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>
