[LukeB_UK]

The problem with disabling javascript by default and making it opt-in, is that most users expect things to just work.

If you want to disable javascript yourself, fine, but don't degrade the experience of the web for everyone.

[cm2187]

But there is an over reliance on javascript to make up for the shortcomings of html and css. Most websites should not need javascript. If you look at your own browsing history, how many of these websites genuinely need to run client side logic?

If a user ends up on a webmail or an online gaming website, I don't think he will be surprised if he is asked whether he would like to allow this website (not third parties) to execute javascript (and to keep that setting). If that same user goes on any blog, forum, news or ecommerce website, there is really no good reason to execute client side code.

Auto completion in a text box (or server validation by input without a full POST) should have been embedded in html a long time ago. And it took 20 years before they finally agreed to add a datepicker tag, not exactly a new problem. Because of the glacial pace of evolution of html, we became used to javascript tricks to make up for what html doesn't do. And flash is mostly used for the same reason.

That doesn't mean that flash and javascript don't have any use.

[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.

[cm2187]

It's a bit of a subjective debate. But having to run all that interpreted code in the background is probably not making the engine leaner and faster. I am sure it would be much more efficient to declare your intent in html and having the native renderer handling it. And certainly a lot less verbose and subject to bugs.

Say you add to the input tag a validation attribute with an URL and the browser posts the content of the input box in the background for validation, and give feedback to the user in a standard but customizable way.

For auto-completion, same thing, just adding one attribute with a url and a standard feedback.

Also an attribute to allocate a change to a css property when clicking on an element, to enable css pop ups.

There are probably a dozen more attributes like that and that would pretty much make javascript redundant on 99% of the website without making the HTML syntax much heavier (and overall your page would be lighter, because you don't have to write the plumbing every time). And you save having to interpret javascript so it has to be more efficient in term of performance too.

One counter example is something like bootstrap, where javascript is used to adapt the formatting to the form factor. But this is a good example of a horrible use of javascript, having to use javascript for presentation. It is just a case of html not being fit for purpose (since its purpose has evolved).

[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.

[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.

[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.

[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.

[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.