Remind me again why we decided a structured document is a good way of rendering an application.
Or why we decided a type-less interpreted language that sucks at data processing and doing anything in an object orientated way is the way we try and achieve high speed graphics for applications on the web?
Microsoft should never have killed Silverlight. HTML sucks so bad, and Silverlight fixed so many of it's obvious deficiencies (like XSS for instance, video streaming, DRM video, templating, object orientation by default etc etc etc).
Tough crowd! I shall rebutt:
User interfaces inherently have structure - far more than the old flat/simple-nested style VB6 Forms. Mozilla's XUL and Microsoft's XAML are examples that show a structured document is a great way to implement a UI (though I prefer XUL to XAML as it separates presentation from content, whereas XAML combines the two).
Describing ECMAScript as a data-processing language is a straw-man argument. Browser scripting is ostensibly meant for DOM manipulation and simple interactivity - anything more is a cool tech demo. Heavy-lifting is meant to be done on the server-side. But if you want typing, there is TypeScript.
And what's wrong with high-speed graphics?
On the contrary, it is Silverlight that sucks:.the web is meant to be an open platform, accessible to all, regardless of device, platform or browser. Plugins are dead. XSS is a server-side issue, not an issue with HTML itself. HTML5 <video> works fine for streaming: YouTube uses it, as does Apple, to great effect. I'm personally opposed to DRM, especially on video (because cryptographically DRM doesn't work because Bob and Charles are the same person), but HTML5's working group is looking to make HTML5 support DRM video without actually providing it. And object orientation has what to do with HTML exactly?