7 ms·

Why does it have to be so siloed? What if I want documents with a slight bit of inactivity? Why must I go through two different protocols? What if I want to rea

Why does it have to be so siloed? What if I want documents with a slight bit of inactivity? Why must I go through two different protocols? What if I want to read a paper next to the Juyter notebook that made it? I think it should be the clients job to take whatever slice of a richer universe it wants. This also stops duplication of effort, why maintain separate protocols and clients etc. It’s just a search issue, there are plenty of text websites out there. Protocols like Gemini I think are a waste of time.

na85 4y ago
>Why does it have to be so siloed? What if I want documents with a slight bit of inactivity? You aren't allowed to have that, because it's not profitable for the web developer crowd's bosses. So your "slight bit of interactivity" becomes "several megabytes of surveillance and advertising".
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  What if we're rebelling and make a new Web? If it will be interested enough, useful enough, both developers and users will come.
kitsunesoba 4y ago
The problem with "one client to rule them all" is a massive lost of consistency, speed/responsiveness, and usability when it comes to documents. On the web, documents can come in anything ranging from the form of a tiny text file to a gargantuan "app" that weighs tens of megabytes and spins up your laptop's fans to render. It also means that the browser isn't nearly as smart as it could be because it has to be a general purpose jack of all trades. A dedicated document browser would likely almost always blazing fast, regardless of the machine it was run on and the network over which the documents were transferred over. It could have features that would make no sense in a web browser but greatly enhance the experience of reading and navigation. It could reasonably cache nearly everything the user visits (since it's practically all read-only and small) to reduce server load and increase speed. In a nutshell, it could be far better at specifically working with documents than a web browser ever could, even with a laundry list of extensions installed. Additionally, it would actually be possible to write brand new competing document browsers due to the vastly more simple specification, which is something the web will probably never have again.
- 6keZbCECT2uB 4y ago
  I find this compelling, but the lines feel blurry to me. For example, take Hacker News. When I read hacker news, it's both static and simple. But, if I want to make a comment, suddenly I need authentication and a text box. So, does all of Hacker News have to be in an application web to support comments? Do I have to use two different applications to read or submit comments? Next level of complexity might be form entry. Say I want to buy tickets for a conference, and need to submit my credit card information, phone number, address, etc. We already have authorization from HN, but are the credit card and phone number boxes just plain text boxes? No validation or interactive feedback until I POST? When I enter my address, do I get a map of where that is so that I don't confuse N xx-th St NYC with xx-th St NYC, one of which is in Brooklyn and one of which is in Manhattan? On the flip side in the application web, when I'm doing my banking. If you go all the way to pixels, how does my accessibility reader handle it?
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  The problem with one client is that the client is made by a corporation whose interests are not aligned well with the interests of the users and of other companies. One company owning the Web and practically dictating standards, what users can do or not do on web, it's pretty damn bad.
grishka 4y ago
> What if I want documents with a slight bit of inactivity? Then you use Adobe Flash. See, we used to have a decent technology for when you want "a document with a slight bit of interactivity". It worked very well for this exact purpose. More than 10 years later, browsers' native capabilities, that are supposed to be a replacement for what Flash offered, have still not quite caught up. Moreover, Flash defined a clear boundary between the document and the application parts. Did the particular (Adobe's proprietary) implementation of Flash player suck? Yes, sure. Could this have been done better? Yes, sure. Is it possible to reimplement a Flash player from scratch within a reasonable timeframe with a small team of developers? Yes, sure, Ruffle[1] is a thing, and it's being actively developed. I miss Flash. I hope it makes a comeback eventually. [1] https://ruffle.rs https://ruffle.rs
- iamcurious 4y ago
  Cool, since you are here , is there any flash editor clone? That was the stuff, animations, games, apps, all so intuitive.
  - grishka 4y ago
    None that I know of. Of course it would be nice to have an open-source editor as well, but an open-source player is much more important. You can get by with abandonware for the creation side of things, but you can't ask your site visitors to install abandonware that is known for an astonishing amount of scary vulnerabilities (if they use an OS that was supported in the first place).
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Try https://tumult.com/hype/ https://tumult.com/hype/
    - iamcurious 4y ago
      Looks cool! But I don't own nor plan to own a mac.
  - kixiQu 4y ago
Tyr42 4y ago
I think it's point 2. In the article, that it shouldn't be compatible, as you'll end up having to implement all of chrome again. And the anecdote about adding the tracking code for one thing, but all the other market segmentation information getting turned on afterwards because it can. But yeah, I do want comments on my blog posts, and hn linking to docs.
betwixthewires 4y ago
So are you saying you just want the web as it is? If not, what would you change? How would you prevent it from becoming what it is now? I don't see why a document couldn't have a link to an application that opened next to it, so that you could view documentation and an application together. We should utilize the organizational ui paradigms built into our operating system, not use the system as a launcher for Chrome. The effort is being done whether its all in one application or split into two. It has to be siloed because if it isn't, you won't be able to find the document you want to read without running application code, as we see with the modern web. It's not a search issue, I find the documents I want to read just fine, it's just that they come with megabytes of executable code I don't want to run. It would be nice if a client could only implement the rich stuff that it wants to, unfortunately, when the rich stuff is all different everywhere, it means only clients that support all of it get used, hence the current state of web browser development.
- 8note 4y ago
  The web is about fine as it is. The changes we need are around people, improving liberal arts education; and ownership, having government run alternatives to most things like search, login, and payments

na85 4y ago

>Why does it have to be so siloed? What if I want documents with a slight bit of inactivity? You aren't allowed to have that, because it's not profitable for the web developer crowd's bosses. So your "slight bit of interactivity" becomes "several megabytes of surveillance and advertising".

DeathArrow 4y ago
What if we're rebelling and make a new Web? If it will be interested enough, useful enough, both developers and users will come.

kitsunesoba 4y ago

The problem with "one client to rule them all" is a massive lost of consistency, speed/responsiveness, and usability when it comes to documents. On the web, documents can come in anything ranging from the form of a tiny text file to a gargantuan "app" that weighs tens of megabytes and spins up your laptop's fans to render. It also means that the browser isn't nearly as smart as it could be because it has to be a general purpose jack of all trades. A dedicated document browser would likely almost always blazing fast, regardless of the machine it was run on and the network over which the documents were transferred over. It could have features that would make no sense in a web browser but greatly enhance the experience of reading and navigation. It could reasonably cache nearly everything the user visits (since it's practically all read-only and small) to reduce server load and increase speed. In a nutshell, it could be far better at specifically working with documents than a web browser ever could, even with a laundry list of extensions installed. Additionally, it would actually be possible to write brand new competing document browsers due to the vastly more simple specification, which is something the web will probably never have again.

6keZbCECT2uB 4y ago
I find this compelling, but the lines feel blurry to me. For example, take Hacker News. When I read hacker news, it's both static and simple. But, if I want to make a comment, suddenly I need authentication and a text box. So, does all of Hacker News have to be in an application web to support comments? Do I have to use two different applications to read or submit comments? Next level of complexity might be form entry. Say I want to buy tickets for a conference, and need to submit my credit card information, phone number, address, etc. We already have authorization from HN, but are the credit card and phone number boxes just plain text boxes? No validation or interactive feedback until I POST? When I enter my address, do I get a map of where that is so that I don't confuse N xx-th St NYC with xx-th St NYC, one of which is in Brooklyn and one of which is in Manhattan? On the flip side in the application web, when I'm doing my banking. If you go all the way to pixels, how does my accessibility reader handle it?
DeathArrow 4y ago
The problem with one client is that the client is made by a corporation whose interests are not aligned well with the interests of the users and of other companies. One company owning the Web and practically dictating standards, what users can do or not do on web, it's pretty damn bad.

grishka 4y ago

> What if I want documents with a slight bit of inactivity? Then you use Adobe Flash. See, we used to have a decent technology for when you want "a document with a slight bit of interactivity". It worked very well for this exact purpose. More than 10 years later, browsers' native capabilities, that are supposed to be a replacement for what Flash offered, have still not quite caught up. Moreover, Flash defined a clear boundary between the document and the application parts. Did the particular (Adobe's proprietary) implementation of Flash player suck? Yes, sure. Could this have been done better? Yes, sure. Is it possible to reimplement a Flash player from scratch within a reasonable timeframe with a small team of developers? Yes, sure, Ruffle[1] is a thing, and it's being actively developed. I miss Flash. I hope it makes a comeback eventually. [1] https://ruffle.rs https://ruffle.rs

iamcurious 4y ago
Cool, since you are here , is there any flash editor clone? That was the stuff, animations, games, apps, all so intuitive.
- grishka 4y ago
  None that I know of. Of course it would be nice to have an open-source editor as well, but an open-source player is much more important. You can get by with abandonware for the creation side of things, but you can't ask your site visitors to install abandonware that is known for an astonishing amount of scary vulnerabilities (if they use an OS that was supported in the first place).
- chrischen 4y ago
  Try https://tumult.com/hype/ https://tumult.com/hype/
  - iamcurious 4y ago
    Looks cool! But I don't own nor plan to own a mac.
- kixiQu 4y ago

Tyr42 4y ago

I think it's point 2. In the article, that it shouldn't be compatible, as you'll end up having to implement all of chrome again. And the anecdote about adding the tracking code for one thing, but all the other market segmentation information getting turned on afterwards because it can. But yeah, I do want comments on my blog posts, and hn linking to docs.

betwixthewires 4y ago

So are you saying you just want the web as it is? If not, what would you change? How would you prevent it from becoming what it is now? I don't see why a document couldn't have a link to an application that opened next to it, so that you could view documentation and an application together. We should utilize the organizational ui paradigms built into our operating system, not use the system as a launcher for Chrome. The effort is being done whether its all in one application or split into two. It has to be siloed because if it isn't, you won't be able to find the document you want to read without running application code, as we see with the modern web. It's not a search issue, I find the documents I want to read just fine, it's just that they come with megabytes of executable code I don't want to run. It would be nice if a client could only implement the rich stuff that it wants to, unfortunately, when the rich stuff is all different everywhere, it means only clients that support all of it get used, hence the current state of web browser development.

8note 4y ago
The web is about fine as it is. The changes we need are around people, improving liberal arts education; and ownership, having government run alternatives to most things like search, login, and payments