I applaud such work as a way of expanding your own knowledge. Projects like this can really accelerate your engineering skills and gives you a much deeper perspective on how such systems come into existence.
But in terms of ever being a "replacement" for HTML+CSS, please keep in mind that the potential adoption of your system has very little to do with its merits - and almost everything to do with the ubiquity of the platforms on which your system can run. You see, there's a huge difference between saying: I will create a new environment that will run in existing browsers, versus saying: I will rework the basic language by which browsers operate (in other words, I will require all of the browsers to rework how they operate).
Imagine that I created a brand new, more efficient, more logical way to transmit phone calls. Maybe it's 100x better than the old way. But if everyone needs to get a new phone before it can work, the proposal will probably go nowhere. Also, even if the proposal were adopted, it wouldn't be adopted by the users. It would be adopted by the phone service providers.
So in your example, you really can't judge FIWL by whether other programmers want to use it. Of course they don't want to use it. If they use it, what they build won't work in any browsers. You can only judge it by whether you can convince the browser creators to adopt it.
// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
Seems like the only way to convince people "revolutionize" thing is building a company (yup that won't be easy) and compete with existing company like Google. Anyway, let me know if I wrong, thanks!
Again, I think it's cool that you've taken the initiative to do something like this. But if mass-adoption is your standard of success, then "building a company" won't be of much help to you.
Look again at my analogy regarding phone transmissions. Let's imagine that I've created a way to transmit phone calls that is just soooooo much better than the existing standard. But... the existing phone carriers won't listen to me. So, what should I do???
Well... I could "build a company" to compete with the existing phone carriers. But there's one massive problem with this idea:
Once I've built my company, that will transmit phone calls with my superior standard, and I'm selling phones that will utilize my superior standard, it still means that no will be able to talk to my customers - unless they have also bought my phones.
This means that, if someone has bought my phone service, and even if the technology underlying my phone service is somehow "better", they still won't be able to talk to anyone else who's using any other phone carrier.
Imagine if you bought a T-Mobile phone and it would only allow you to talk to other T-Mobile users. And imagine that iPhone users could only talk to other iPhone users. That would be an absolute mess.
So, no. Building your own company probably won't solve any of your problems. Not unless you actually think that you can get nearly all of the world's internet users to view web pages through your own browser, that were written in your own proprietary markup language.
That's really great analogy, thanks for that 😊 I'm wondering if World Wide Web Consortium actually willing to open their mind for the next web standard
The Consortium is indeed the "correct" way to go about making such changes. It probably wouldn't happen as an alternative to HTML/CSS, but rather, as an extension to them. The Consortium works as all big, distributed, voluntary committees work - that is to say: they work at glacial speed and it's hard to get them to agree on much of anything. But it is, theoretically, possible.
But you should also keep in mind that what you are building, in many ways, goes against what that Consortium has been trying to do for the last 20+ years. In the very early days of HTML, there were more examples where style was stuffed right alongside the content (e.g., the height and width attributes of table cells). There was a very conscious effort to strip the style elements out of HTML. The thinking was to consciously provide a separation of style and content.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your approach, you are stuffing style elements right back into the content. I can guarantee that, if you were to talk directly with folks at the WWW Consortium, and you explained that your new-and-improved approach includes such built-in attributes as alignContents, width, height, backgroundColor, cornerRadius, etc., your idea would be dismissed immediately.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I applaud such work as a way of expanding your own knowledge. Projects like this can really accelerate your engineering skills and gives you a much deeper perspective on how such systems come into existence.
But in terms of ever being a "replacement" for HTML+CSS, please keep in mind that the potential adoption of your system has very little to do with its merits - and almost everything to do with the ubiquity of the platforms on which your system can run. You see, there's a huge difference between saying: I will create a new environment that will run in existing browsers, versus saying: I will rework the basic language by which browsers operate (in other words, I will require all of the browsers to rework how they operate).
Imagine that I created a brand new, more efficient, more logical way to transmit phone calls. Maybe it's 100x better than the old way. But if everyone needs to get a new phone before it can work, the proposal will probably go nowhere. Also, even if the proposal were adopted, it wouldn't be adopted by the users. It would be adopted by the phone service providers.
So in your example, you really can't judge FIWL by whether other programmers want to use it. Of course they don't want to use it. If they use it, what they build won't work in any browsers. You can only judge it by whether you can convince the browser creators to adopt it.
// , Someone needs to sit down the guys that have proclaimed themselves Blockchain "maximalists" and explain this to them.
Seems like the only way to convince people "revolutionize" thing is building a company (yup that won't be easy) and compete with existing company like Google. Anyway, let me know if I wrong, thanks!
Again, I think it's cool that you've taken the initiative to do something like this. But if mass-adoption is your standard of success, then "building a company" won't be of much help to you.
Look again at my analogy regarding phone transmissions. Let's imagine that I've created a way to transmit phone calls that is just soooooo much better than the existing standard. But... the existing phone carriers won't listen to me. So, what should I do???
Well... I could "build a company" to compete with the existing phone carriers. But there's one massive problem with this idea:
Once I've built my company, that will transmit phone calls with my superior standard, and I'm selling phones that will utilize my superior standard, it still means that no will be able to talk to my customers - unless they have also bought my phones.
This means that, if someone has bought my phone service, and even if the technology underlying my phone service is somehow "better", they still won't be able to talk to anyone else who's using any other phone carrier.
Imagine if you bought a T-Mobile phone and it would only allow you to talk to other T-Mobile users. And imagine that iPhone users could only talk to other iPhone users. That would be an absolute mess.
So, no. Building your own company probably won't solve any of your problems. Not unless you actually think that you can get nearly all of the world's internet users to view web pages through your own browser, that were written in your own proprietary markup language.
Umm... Good luck with that.
That's really great analogy, thanks for that 😊 I'm wondering if World Wide Web Consortium actually willing to open their mind for the next web standard
The Consortium is indeed the "correct" way to go about making such changes. It probably wouldn't happen as an alternative to HTML/CSS, but rather, as an extension to them. The Consortium works as all big, distributed, voluntary committees work - that is to say: they work at glacial speed and it's hard to get them to agree on much of anything. But it is, theoretically, possible.
But you should also keep in mind that what you are building, in many ways, goes against what that Consortium has been trying to do for the last 20+ years. In the very early days of HTML, there were more examples where style was stuffed right alongside the content (e.g., the
heightandwidthattributes of table cells). There was a very conscious effort to strip the style elements out of HTML. The thinking was to consciously provide a separation of style and content.While I don't necessarily disagree with your approach, you are stuffing style elements right back into the content. I can guarantee that, if you were to talk directly with folks at the WWW Consortium, and you explained that your new-and-improved approach includes such built-in attributes as
alignContents,width,height,backgroundColor,cornerRadius, etc., your idea would be dismissed immediately.