[captainmuon]

There are web sites, and there are web apps. Most websites, think news sites, Wikipedia, etc.. just deliver static content and a whole bunch of ads, as someone noted here. Web applications are the ones that need all this functionality.

Why don't we do the following for HTML6, and introduce one profile for sites, and one for apps.

- Sites: HTML + CSS, Javascript if at all only for presentation purposes (like DHTML over a decade ago). Can be viewed with a radically stripped-down web browser. All you need is the layout engine and components for display and networking. No WebGL, no sound API, and no shenanigans like ambient light sensors or vibration (wtf!). Think of Google's AMP.

- Apps: The whole package that is offered nowadays. We can even go past this and rethink the division between web and native apps. Why can't a web app use sockets? Why can't a native app use the HTML layout engine or live in a tab? Google is planning to blur the gap between web and native with their new "instant apps".

[Razengan]

This just keeps coming up on HN time and again; [1] [2] [3]

Whichever side you're on, browser vs. native, the sheer frequency of this discussion proves that at least a clear distinction IS needed. Continuing the status quo of web/browser/standards bloat cannot be good.

Somebody really needs to set down some global rules of thumb. I think that when your webpage starts needing sidebars and subwindows and popups and notifications (yes, looking at you, Facebook) then at that point it should just be a native app.

Let the web and its browsers focus on "sites" and "pages" and let the OS do "apps." After that it's up to the operating systems to make discovering and accessing apps as easy as typing in a website's address.

As a user, I want to sign in just once on each of my devices (iCloud/Apple ID lets me do that), and just type in an app's name (say Cmd+Space and "facebook") and then start using it right away as the OS begins downloading it incrementally, just as a browser does a website, except with full access to the OS's features, efficient use of my hardware and battery, and instant access to all my data without a separate login.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11735770

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11552162

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11658873

[nitrogen]

No WebGL

One problem is that some interactive news articles can make very impressive use of WebGL, like the interactive climbing map that accompanied an article about the Dawn Wall freeclimbing record: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/09/sports/the-daw...

[alchemical]

> Can be viewed with a radically stripped-down web browser.

Like Lynx?

In terms of sites versus apps, I think the browser vendors are responsible for making this happen. Adobe AIR was the closest effort I saw of marrying web technologies with apps.

Sadly AIR never took off and whilst I appreciate the intention, it left a huge looming question of what do we actually do with all this new web technology?.

One answer I came up with in recent years was what you suggested: of partitioning off the people who want to work with the technologies and keep them separate from the text+image+CSS based web we've all grown to love.

Similar to how the demo-scene was an offshoot of game development...

[the8472]

Electron and eventually Positron give us the app side.

So we're mostly lacking the site-only aspect. To some extent that can be achieved with addons that strip or block certain APIs.

[davegauer]

I'm really happy to see that I'm not the only one with this dream. It would be good for developers and good for end users. Everybody wins.