dom VS epiphany

My long-shot hope is that the page can come to embody most of the wiring on the page, that how things interact can be encoded there. Behavior of the page can be made visible! There's so much allure to me to hypermedia that's able to declare itself well.

This could radically enhance user agency, if users/extensions can rewire the page on the fly, without having to delve into the (bundled, minified) JS layers.

There's also a chance the just-merged (!) moveBefore() capability means that frameworks will recreate HTML elements less, which is a modern regression that has severely hampered extensions/user agency. https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1307

in plain htmx, you can target an area that doesn't disrupt a playing video (e.g. the comments box appending to the comments) or you can use a morphing algorithm that disrupts the DOM less.

i have my own morphing algorithm (and a corresponding htmx plugin that allows you to use it) called idiomorph:

https://github.com/bigskysoftware/idiomorph/

i've also been working with the chrome team to get a feature added they are calling "atomic moves":

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1255

this would allow us to move elements around in the DOM without losing things like play state or focus or whatever

very excited for this last idea, I think it will be a huge boon for the web in general, not just for htmx

What I said in my previous comment is observably true. Try making a demo where it isn't.

> A DOM node is a living mutable thing, but the JavaScript object representing that node is not.

The JavaScript object is mutable. The first example in the article shows this.

> That is also why a node list is not an array.

Modern APIs on the web return platform arrays (eg JavaScript arrays). https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#js-sequence - here's where the WebIDL spec specifies how to convert a sequence to a JavaScript array.

I'm fully aware of NodeList. There's a reason the spec calls them "old-style" https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#old-style-collections

> I can understand how this is confusing if you have never operated without a framework, but otherwise it’s really straightforward

Sighhhhhh. I've been a web developer for over 20 years, and spent a decade on the Chrome team working on web platform features. Most of my career has been on the low-level parts of the platform.

Could it be possible that people are disagreeing with you, not because they're stupid, but because you're in the wrong? Please try to be open minded. Try creating some demos that test your opinions.

Domenic Denicola (the man who ruined promises) probably will as well.

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/67

I'm pretty sure it is, since I get "TypeError: nodes[i].parentNode.href is undefined" and "TypeError: $mainmenu.parent(...).get(...) is undefined" errors on both Pale Moon and LibreWolf. Which is part of Shadow/DOM, and originated from google (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/06/the-state-of-web-components/). Not sure when this particular thing was introduced, since it's a "living standard"/experimental feature (https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/).

JSX chose to align names to the DOM spec [0]. Same for htmlFor and friends.

[0] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dom-element-classname%E...

You can see why I say this here: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org

The product logos in this article's cover image include different languages and technologies some of which are still relevant for web development today: HTML, CSS, JavaScript / ES / TypeScript (and the DOM), SVG, PDF, PHP, SQL (mySQL, MariaDB), mongoDB, Node.js (the most successful server-side implementation of JavaScript so far).

Thanks for the shout-out! I think I mention this in the talk, but note that YMMV. I designed that benchmark as a kind of "worst-case scenario" where shadow DOM / scoped styles really show a benefit. Depending on your CSS rules, DOM size, and amount of thrashing, the perf benefit could be small to large.

Also, it's still possible to shoot yourself in the foot, especially if you have a large/complex stylesheet repeated across multiple shadow roots. (Not because of the repetition – that's optimized in browsers [1] – but rather because of the number of DOM nodes affected.)

That said, I still think the perf benefits of shadow DOM have been undersung. And Declarative Shadow DOM makes it way more useful.

[1]: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/831#issuecomment-585489...

Mozilla is just using Firefox's old reputation to market itself as an organisation for Internet freedom, while receiving donations from search engines. People see more advertisements in Firefox than in Chrome and still support Firefox. They forget there is Epiphany.

You can follow its development by yourself here. If you add Planet GNOME to your feed reader you're also extra likely to see such announcements.

Use Epiphany. It uses webkit and thus behaves pretty much the same as Safari for most browser specific bugs.

As far as I can tell, there is no free and easy way to do this unless you own an Apple device. Recently it came to my attention that tools such as Epiphany (Linux) and Playwright (Windows) exist, but even then it's just the rendering engine you're testing, and who knows what weird bugs you might run into.

You might want to take a look at Epiphany[1]. It's just Safari (Webkit, actually), but without the need for Apple devices.

[1]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/epiphany

They used to have a port of Safari for Windows. It was as popular as you'd expect. Having said that, WebKit - the engine underpinning Safari - is open source with BSD and LGPL 2.1 compatible licensing (https://webkit.org/project/). In addition, they make the engine available for use on Linux (https://webkit.org/downloads/). Gnome Epiphany is a browser based on WebKit (https://github.com/GNOME/epiphany). According to their manifesto, they support Simplicity, Standards Compliance and Software Freedom. Specifically, "Epiphany opposes the dominance of the web by proprietary software web browsers. Today's chief offender is Google Chrome, a browser that purports to be open source, yet actually includes several proprietary components."

Epiphany development relies heavily on WebKitGTK, some things are out of reach for developers who do a great job. One such problem is the scroll speed. This extension is a workaround for that, please if you can contribute, contribute upstream.