From: Jonas Hartmann Date: 2005-04-14T10:25:19+09:00 Subject: Re: What's beyond Rails? (OT) James Toomey wrote: > Somewhat off-topic rant: This isn't so much a dig at Rails but a > critique of HTML in general. I've done web development with PHP, > ColdFusion, and ASP, and being able to use Ruby in doing so (especially > with Rails' well-designed database interactivity) is certainly a > welcome change. However, the general model is still the same, in terms > of using code to write out HTML to an essentially-static page. First of all, the web is a big hyperlinked document. > The HTML interface is still such a far cry from the things you can do with a > rich client. The internet is a network of information. You can pretty well distribute information with hyperlinked text. You can critize the kind of how HTML is made but not in this way. Rich interfaces require users to work a lot with them, to learn to use them. Simple, so mostly easy to use interfaces dont. Text is black, Links are blue, that is simple, and if there is a good hypertext "author" behind that, it works very well. (See Wikipedia or DMoz) > For ordering airline tickets on Travelocity or books on > Amazon, the web works great This is already an extension to the basic "task" of the web. FORMs let the normal user put in some information back onto the network. > but imagine trying to emulate Adobe > Photoshop via a web browser, or a spreadsheet like Excel. First of all, why should I? > It seems to me that there needs to be a next-generation of HTML that > enables web apps to truly be like rich client apps, There is SVG, but I don't see the need. > and > I don't think the solution needs to be a faster connection that sucks > down the entire application in the form of massive Java applets every > time I want to use the program. Massive flash applets - god how I like flash-click-to-play Firefox extensions. Gone, all the trash that burns my eyes. > Perhaps the solution does need to be a > "computer" that's designed from the ground up as a web-enabled dumb > terminal, but that has forms and controls optimized so that they > require minimal data inflow to tell them what to do. Now what do you want? Rich User Interfaces? Or Simple, easy ones? I don't get you now? > To me, this would make the web incredibly more useful (and would put > serious potential into the claim that Google wants to become a web > operating system). Web What? DMoz / Wikipedia / Leo ... > Google. And IF, then Apache ( :-) + Internet Explorer is the "OS of the Web" :-( > If I've purchased Adobe Photoshop (or rented it, as > I'm sure will be the more likely model), OMG even more rental things :< > instead of loading it on every > computer I use, why can't I get to Photoshop at any computer in the > world merely by logging into my personal website and getting access to > every software program I own or am renting? why would I want to rent software. if I am forced to use close software I am already dependent enough on the manufacterer. > Why would it need to be > reloaded at every computer? This is particularly annoying when you're > visiting a friend in another city for a weekend, and jump onto his > computer to check email or show him how to do something useful, and > think, "I wish I had App X loaded on here right now." Get a notebook. (I can recommend 12" a iBook G4 =) > I was disappointed to see Google Suggest being touted as innovative; it > seems to indicate that Google's going to stay within the existing web > realm and not try anything really new (as I read on the web somewhere, > "for a web app, Google Suggest is neat; for a desktop app, it's so > 1995"). For all of Google's deep pockets and reputation as innovative, > I expected to see them partner up with a hardware manufacturer and try > something dramatically different. I can't figure out what you want to say. About HTML. Basically there are features missing in regards to forms. You cant have "float values" in forms (no sliders, knobs or anything), you cant do sliders with steppings (fixed value steps) and some of these things need you to create workarounds. Worst of all is that there is no interactivity without javascript - what a pain. xul is a nice approach but works only on GRE (gecko runtime engine) atm afaik and yes there is SVG and SMIL - go write a browser (XUL + ruby renderer ;p) the techniques are mostly there. anyway I still don't see that there is such big need for these things. there is still the possibility to use client<->server architectures with OS native applications written in ruby or other languages communicating with a server that is on the internet (but not www). What we do need more is software that let people, everywhere, even those not to familiar with the web, attach content they have to the web WITH metadata, and LINKED into logical structures. And in regards to this, there are some limits, even IF browser supported current standards, with the current standards cause they do not offer as many layout features as professional news paper designing applications do offer. HTML just does not offer enough structure elements (only 6 levels deep headers?) and CSS does not offer enough layouting power. (try to have a text with an image floating centered, vertically and horizontally... I didnt manage that yet =) what has all this to do with rails or ruby?