Re: [dev] seif opinions?

From: Louis Santillan <>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:24:18 -0700

I personally feel that Hixie's Laws of the Web (I'm trademarking that
since I just thought of it) #3 & #4 are mishandled but as a result of
the experiences of the early web.

I remember the early "mobile" web (Palm Treo 650 & BB World Edition in
2004-2009). They weren't as bad as many people made them out to be.
Especially if sites focused on content over media. I never did any
WAP/WML browsing [0][1] but I guess that was good for Asia & Europe
for a little while (?).

My answer to #3 is to not worry about it. Vendors & developers
naturally respond and improve the experience (usually by removing
stuff). MIME/Content types are then important and fallback rendering
should be something useable. Must use "IE Edge v. 50+" is a cop out
especially if no fallback mode is provided. I'll go somewhere else to
get that content, thank you!

I remember the early web (95-97) having dozens of plugins available to
do different things. And they were shitty (slow, broken, etc). And
super insecure (and the matter was compounded by the insecurity of
Windows). They required too much of the browser's context and the
plugin's context to be shared. Eventually the web down-selected to a
few (Java & Flash).

My answer to #4 is to have something like sandboxed plugins which act
more file extension handlers. I really hate that my browser decides
to render a PDF for me instead of downloading it. Browsers have
become more complex than OSes and that's not good. Let a native app
handle it.


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Martin K├╝hne <> wrote:
> So, what about the impact of #3 and #4 on the code size of modern browsers.
> That means it should be easier to understand (and implement) than DOM.
> Or is there an even harder problem?
> cheers!
> mar77i
Received on Tue Sep 27 2016 - 10:24:18 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 27 2016 - 10:36:14 CEST