Hacker News Reader

Comment by esailija | Hacker News Reader

So you are saying one shouldn't use JS to implement voting and comments but instead voting and comments should interrupt the video and then one uses JavaScript to restore the playback position. You also imply youtube should have waited for 6 years or whatever for video playback to even be possible without client side programming.

> Maybe browsers could even agree on a standard to refresh only part of the pages by querying the server themselves.

Maybe browsers could also agree on implementing all needed applications in the browser. Then you just make <youtube> tag and you have implemented youtube.

View on HN

HTTP 204. You send the request, the browser stays where it is. Super simple, and what it was made for. Amazon used to use it quite heavily back in the day.

The interesting thing about the modern web developer is that they don't know jack or shit about HTTP.

Yes. Quite literally "kids these days". HTTP is so powerful and so under utilized today.

Is there a spec that the browser must stay where it is? Otherwise I would just use a form targeted to a hidden iframe. Still it's not usable here since you won't see your vote or comment or anything without reloading the entire page.

https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html "If the client is a user agent, it SHOULD NOT change its document view"

Also, a tiny bit of JS and no ajax can solve that easily.

The spec language "SHOULD" is not same as "MUST" at all.

> Also, a tiny bit of JS and no ajax can solve that easily.

No disagreement from me that JS solves these issues.

The spec language "SHOULD" is not same as "MUST" at all.

No, but in practice all major browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE, Opera and Safari) do so. And it's not like the implementations of JS and its APIs never differ.

> The spec language "SHOULD" is not same as "MUST" at all.

There are edge case clients that would need to contravene this. Most of those clients don't support JavaScript (or in many cases video) in a meaningful way, making the whole thing moot.

Youtube without voting and comments sounds like video nirvana.

Maybe you could have some kind of application, or "app" that users could install locally, on their computer or device, and then this application could play videos from Google, without needing to use a web browser at all!

And have full access to your machine as well! Let's just make every website a downloadable application then.

No, let's just have applications be applications. You know what works really, really well for streaming videos across a network? VLC.

And build it for multiple platforms. Unless you only care about one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com