[TeaDude]

I agree that we need a new - less crufty - standard to replace HTML/CSS/JS but there's another point which I feel has been sorely missed in previous efforts.

I want a FUN standard. I want to make cool looking sites that are relatively scalable based on user hardware.

Alternatives like Gopher and Gemini never really scratched that itch due to how sterile they are.

[jerf]

The problem you have is that by defining a "FUN" standard, you've probably created a basin of attraction [1] for what is basically the web today. It doesn't take much before you've basically let the ocean in.

There are clearly many points between Gopher/Gemini and the modern web... but I'm not sure any of them are stable. Between the difficulty of keeping out features in a principled manner in what will inevitably become a group effort and how easy it is to accidentally spec something that turns out to be a lot more complicated than you thought it was, you're pretty much working in a space where the Horrors of the Web are lurking just outside your door, and you'd be surprised which missteps will let them in.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

[radiator]

This is very deep. I like this mathematical explanation of why we get either Gemini, which nobody uses, or the modern web.

[graypegg]

OH yeah, thank you for saying that. Gemini was a short 1 month obsession of mine. I just hit this brick wall of "... oh... this is it?".

I do think HTML is a fun standard though. There's so much "big business productization" chained to it. Web companies announce updates to frameworks as if it's an apple keynote now. I think that gives a false impression of the "bones" of the web though. HTML/CSS is still fun! :) Nothing beats the visual-focus and short lag time between code->website in browser.

[squidbeak]

The problem will always be that 'fun' rapidly develops complexity to support 'cool looking'.