4 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2021
  2. Apr 2021
    1. Documents should offer the same granularity.

      That neither content creators nor browser vendors are particularly concerned with the production and consumption of documents, as such, is precisely the issue. This is evident in the banner that the majority of the work has occurred under over the last 10+ years: they're the Web Hypertext Applications Technology Working Group.

      No one, not even the most well-intentioned (such as the folks at Automattic who are responsible for the blogging software that made Christina's post here possible), see documents when they think of the Web. No, everything is an app—take this page, for example; even the "pages" that WordPress produces are facets of an application. Granted, it's an application meant for reading the written word (and meant for occasionally writing it), but make no mistake, it's an application first, and a "document" only by happenstance (i.e. the absence of any realistic alternative to HTML & co for application delivery).

    1. You can do less with media that’s merely digitized than with the real thing
    2. Though its format can be copied and manipulated, HTML doesn’t make that easy.

      In fact, HTML makes it very easy (true for the reasons that lead Mark to write that it can be copied and manipulated). It's contemporary authoring systems and the typical author-as-publisher and the choices they make that are what makes this difficult.

      The future of rich media lies in striving to be more like dead media (or at least mining it for insights by better understanding it through thoughtful study), rather than the misguided attempts we've been living inside.

      (This is something that I've done a 180 on in the last year or so.)