> perhaps that is wrong, but the web was pretty successful overall

Since HATEOAS is rarely implemented fully in practice, it would be simplistic to point to it as the reason the web is successful. The web allows an incredible variety of different architectures —- Some more closely aligned to HATEOAS and some less so. Perhaps this is the reason for the success of the web?

HATEOAS was and is implemented widely and effortlessly in hypermedia, since Fielding was describing the existing web architecture. It has failed fairly dramatically in JSON APIs, because JSON is not a native hypertext. Early API designers tried to shoehorn HATEOAS concepts into their APIs, which was somewhat plausible when APIs were XML, which, when squinted at, looked sort of like a hypermedia. Once we kicked over to JSON (and back to RPC as a network architecture) it became silly.

I’m not arguing against that, just that huge chunks of the web break the HATEOAS abstraction, as it were, and yet, as you pointed out, “the web is pretty successful overall”. It’s not super clear to me that this is because of hypermedia or not in the sense that correlation is not causality.

The Web went all JavaScript instead of HTML sometime between 2000(2005?) and 2010(2015?). But by 2000 it was already wildly successful, so apparently it must have been HTML -- "hypermedia" -- that was the key to success, not JavaScript / JSON.

HATEOAS is great, but that's not my issue with HTMX. It's coding interactivity via HTML attributes that I have an issue with. It just never works. It overcomplicates things and there's an actual programming language right there in JavaScript to solve this.

When it goes past the simplest examples it gets ugly real quick. Here's an example of client-side validation via HTMX: https://htmx.org/docs/#validation. That can't be the future.

yes, if you want to do things client side, hypermedia isn't going to be a great solution for you

htmx integrates with the existing HTML 5 validation API because, well, it's there, and that's what normal HTML does. I don't care much for the API, but that's the standard so we follow it. You can, of course, do client side validation however you'd like and integrate it with htmx using events, since events are the proper glue to tie things together in the DOM. I built a scripting language to help with this, and other stuff as well, called hyperscript: https://hyperscript.org

the "htmx" way for validation is the HTML/web 1.0/HATEOAS way: submit the form to the client side, validate and re-render. With htmx that can be inline, rather than a big clunky refresh-the-page action, which is why I say htmx extends and completes HTML as a hypermedia.

So long as you aren't willing to think about things in hypermedia terms, and htmx as an extension/completion of HTML as a hypermedia, you are going to miss the point. That's not to say that the hypermedia approach is always right, it isn't, but with htmx a lot more of the web application problem space is addressable with that approach.

And, as an aside, HATEOAS isn't great, outside the context of a hypermedia.

https://intercoolerjs.org/2016/05/08/hatoeas-is-for-humans.h...

It is, rather, a fairly pointless category error, driven mainly by cargo-cult mentality from the early JSON API era.