That would put us at least 20 years from any new HTML features.
The web looks and works pretty much how it did 10 years ago. Almost every new feature is just a replacement for an old feature that did the same thing but not as well.
We've gone from plugins to add features to building the features right into the browser. We've gone from tens of megabytes to hundreds of megabytes just to render some text and images. There is literally too much code to audit. I think even kernel hackers would have trouble understanding the complexity of modern browsers.
In 20 years, do you expect the web will be significantly different than it is now? The interface might change, but you can't really innovate on text and pictures.
Although the length of your post worries me that you might actually believe what you are saying.
Please check out the Bananabread example on mozilla's developer page (just search it on your favorite search engine). Please do not post such comments again, there are people on here that will not realize you're joking.
> Please do not post such comments again, there are people on here that will not realize you're joking.
What is so dangerous about someone having the opinion that HTML shouldn't get more features? This "be careful what you say"-tone is so weird to me, on this topic.
> Bananabread
A 3D shooter in the browser. So what? Yes there are advantages to having this power, but not everyone is going to agree that it is worth it.
Having to support old tech lengthens development and testing time quite a bit. We need more browser features so we can write less code, only write it once, and distribute self-contained components.
throw it all away and rewrite it all again in two years when even newer features get added to the browsers!
A website is literally just text and pictures. And video. That's it. We really don't need it to be so massively complicated, to suck up so many resources, and to be such a security nightmare.
In 20 years, your browser will probably use a gigabyte or two of ram minimum, require four CPU cores, and consist of several hundred thousand lines of code - maybe a million.
To render text.
And CSS, which supports transform and animation and is inching towards Turing completeness, and javascript, and maybe HTML5/Canvas and WebGL.
Like as not, we seem to be converging towards a point where websites are as much applications as documents.
I'm not saying this excuses the industry, but that doesn't change incentives. If you want more secure services, you need to change the preferences of the users.
Yes and that is one of the exciting innovations being worked on right now, web components. That's exactly why I brought it up.
Some websites are just text and pictures, it is true. We call them brochure-ware. But not the sites I work on. I build applications for managing your entire business. They are just text in pictures in the same way that a PC is just text and pictures. Should we halt innovation on computers in general? NASA's flight control systems are really just calculators if you break it down as you have done with the web.
At the worst you sound anti-technology, and at best, snobbish about your area of specialty. Implying that whatever you work on is important, but things others work on are 'just text'.
Aah, a Luddite, seize him!
Maybe it's not anti-technology as much as anti-cram-everything-into-the-browser. Some people think that full-fledged applications should be kept out of the browser, but that doesn't mean that they think that full-fledged applications shouldn't exist at all.