News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on W3C recommends WebAssembly. Parent comment

Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by shadowgovt on Monday December 09, 2019 @11:01AM (#21743712)
But they aren't. The vast majority of novel protocols never see a billion adopters. There are a handful that have; the email protocols are one, HTTP is another.

Nobody's stopping anyone from building new protocols... Except, of course, the fact that nobody wants to adopt a new protocol. But if someone does come up with an indispensable alternative to HTTP(s), it should find traction, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by BlueTemplar on Monday December 09, 2019 @12:03PM (#21744214)
Google and Facebook were very glad to "adopt" XMPP : https://salibra.com/p/the-death-of-jabber-8ea395e82f5b
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by shadowgovt on Monday December 09, 2019 @01:14PM (#21744885)
XMPP is an excellent example of why existing flexible protocols push out novel protocols. When Google and Facebook wanted to improve the user experience of their XMPP clients, they encountered roadblocks in the fundamental design of the protocol itself. They finally reached a point where exiting the protocol was easier than improving it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by BlueTemplar on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @07:05AM (#21751695)
"Exiting" doesn't seem to be the right word? How do we stop Google, who is currently "exiting" HTML ?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by shadowgovt on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @01:09PM (#21755004)
Should we? I thought you were making the argument that HTML was a bad fit for non-hyperTEXT content. From up-thread:

"Why use the HyperTEXT Transfer Protocol for things completely unrelated to text..."

If Google agrees with you, would we want to stop them?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly by BlueTemplar on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @04:12PM (#21756914)
By "exiting", I mean Embracing-Extending-Extinguishing.
[ Parent | on HN ]