HTML is most popular language for building thin clients. It was basically invented to allow users to view/navigate documents on web. Now, it is used to build complex websites serving users to do more than just view document... However HTML has not kept pace with it's widespread use. Why are basic controls like tree / table / slider / containers / layout managers still missing from html? If such controls are added in HTML langauge itself, browsers will start supporting ...so many thick applications would become thin and users will enjoy same RIA features.
- Posted by: Ejaz Mohammed
- Posted on: December 17 2008 13:46 EST
- Re: Is it time to replace HTML? by James Watson on December 19 2008 12:41 EST
- Re: Is it time to replace HTML? by Ethan Allen on December 19 2008 15:24 EST
- Sure! by Lucas Lee on December 20 2008 09:30 EST
- just few years ago... by Felipe Gaucho on December 22 2008 03:56 EST
- Re: Is it time to replace HTML? by Joubin Houshyar on December 24 2008 11:20 EST
It's been time to replace HTML for more than a decade. It's not a matter of whether it should be done, it's a matter of making it happen.
It's been time to replace HTML for more than a decade. It's not a matter of whether it should be done, it's a matter of making it happen.Thats true, but even if html (->xhtml) hasnt changed much since late nineties, the way that "popular" browsers implement it has. I guess we all remember what it was like to build a decent browser based application that supported both netscape 4 and IE 3 (and a couple of older versions of each). Its pretty likely that we will experience the same incompatibilities with a "new and improved" markup language for the web.
just an opinion ... i think the simplicity of HTML - and "simplicity" includes few features in this case - is the single most important factor in the success of the World Wide Web. there is no way to measure how important it is that idiot kids are able to put up and manipulate Web pages - some of them grow up to be the next generation of tech leaders. i think we should turn to other technologies to create a richer set of features and leave HTML as simple as possible. don't screw up what works. in a way this reminds me of the recent discussion about the Servlet 3.0 spec. i think we should not mess with things that work if those things are foundation material for newcomers. keep these things simple ... satisfy your compulsion to complicate things in another sandbox.
yes, I think so. We do need more widgets, better supported by Browsers directly. And I don't think this is too hard, but I just wondered why no one do that? Maybe it's kind of biz competition.
In what sense is a tree a Hyper Text (HT of the HTML) element? It would be more sensible to remove (or move away from using ) existing Form and Input elements from HTML and use existing means to embed a new UIML (User Interface Markup Language). (If you wish for semantic perfection, it would be best to have the hypothetical UIML embed HTML, as hyper text is a proper subset of a rich User Interface.)