D could catch this wave: web assembly

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 19 June 2015 at 15:38:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 06/19/2015 03:51 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
> <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
>> On Friday, 19 June 2015 at 06:30:30 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> If by "instant" you mean "this web 'app' leaves my mobile 
>>> browser
>>> completely unresponsive for up to a full minute every time I 
>>> tap a
>>> link, every time I use it".
>>
>> Well, if it does not target a cellphone then it probably won't 
>> be
>> pleasant on a small screen anyway.
>
> I find plain-old-desktop-HTML sites to be WAAAY more pleasant 
> on mobile than a lot of "mobile version" sites (which tend to 
> behave really weirdly and be slow). Even Wikipedia's "mobile" 
> version is a pain since it keeps auto-collapsing *while* I'm in 
> the middle of reading a paragraph and also 
> every...single...time...I hit "back" (and therefore have to 
> re-scroll to where I was).

I usually click on the "Request Desktop Site" option in Chrome, 
particularly on my tablet, where I do most of my mobile browsing. 
  Wikipedia's collapsed sections on mobile never seemed like a 
good idea, but I think they're rolling back some of that, at 
least on tablets.

The worst part is the new "mobile-ready" versions of many 
websites, the ones with the giant bar at the top with the 
hamburger menu at the top left, are somehow so bloated that they 
regularly slow down my core i5 ultrabook, with a single browser 
tab ballooning up to 500-600 MBs on a particularly egregious WP 
blog.  I can only imagine how they perform on actual mobile 
devices! :D Not to mention those UIs are horrible for a regular 
desktop monitor, with giant swathes of pixels eaten up by 
"touch-friendly" menus that are useless on my non-touch LCD 
screen, yet they're apparently incapable of detecting that and 
scaling down the UI for non-touch screens.

On Friday, 19 June 2015 at 15:45:20 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 06/19/2015 11:13 AM, Joakim wrote:
>>
>> Heh, I missed the sarcasm in your original comment, I thought 
>> you were
>> actually trumpeting those as worthwhile features.  My point 
>> was that
>> implementing SVG in text is such a bad decision at the base 
>> that it
>> immediately invalidates it, regardless of what other good or 
>> bad
>> features are heaped on top.
>
> We need some sort of SVG-BSON, or something along those lines.

It exists!  Likely just a lightly modified version of the binary 
XML efforts though:

http://www.svgopen.org/2005/paperAbstracts/IntroducingBinarySVG.html

And judging by the few and old links to that effort, looks like 
it didn't get very far.