| > Java and Flash struggle in all areas Worth noting that Flash did succeed: It was widely used across the web and installed by enough web users that sites could usually assume it was available (though it was considerate to provide fallback content) - that even though it needed a separate installation step! It took a conscious effort by browser vendors and Adobe to kill it and replace it with other technologies. Maybe for good reasons, but it was definitely not a "free market" development. I also find the list a bit weird and even hypocritical in places, as, like you say, HTML itself doesn't pass all criteria. I'd also question other points for the general usefulness as an alternative: Why does an alternative tech necessarily have to accept input from everyone? Not even open source projects do that. Also, why does it have to be content-neutral and have to support any kind of application? Pre-web technologies generally were "host neutral" - they let you connect to any host that supported the protocol - but the protocol usually had very well-defined application semantics. It seems instead of trying to "boil the ocean", a better way would be to focus on specific domains that could benefit from alternative technologies the most. Be device and media-neutral: Just to note, Apple only allows single-purpose apps and points to Safari for everything else. They literally forbid anyone from trying to promote any "alternative web" unless they have a say in it. (Not quite sure about the Play Store right now, but they likely do something similar) So taken strictly, thay point would be a nonstarter unless you already have connection to the higher-ups of current Big Tech companies. |
HTML not passing the criteria doesn't negate it from being the current leading technology. All it indicates is that there could be a technology that does more (most) of these things better. And, it sets a certain benchmark for the next technology to aspire to.
I think accepting input from anyone is a resiliency feature. Imagine if only Governments drove the Web? Or Multi-national Megacorps? Billionaires? Choice and freedom helps to democratize and enable usage by participants who are diadvantaged.
Content-neutrality is experiential. That is to say, gopher is well known to be more organizationally efficient at transimitting data than http. However, it was primarily aimed at text transmission and was very poor at supporting applications (like banking, commerce sites or email). These were huge boons to the current Web.