Designers loved Flash because it was WYSIWYG. It's also why PDF lives. You usually only had to test it on one computer, not different versions of different browser brands. The client-side "auto-flow" of HTML browser drives designers batty. I can relate: I make CRUD GUI's and different browser variations butcher their placement to hell and back, requiring me playing Whack-A-Mole to fix it. The online forums say, "Shut up and learn layout rocket science!" A few snotty Sheldons mastering auto-flow math doesn't scale well.
The browser should have a WYSIWYG mode for when your application needs it. The server could re-scale as needed for different devices based on a layout engine of the designer's choosing. That way one is dealing with one layout engine instead of say 50 (browser brand/version combos). Seems more logical to me. We don't need auto-flow rocket science if we just partition layout engines logically.
I believe Flash and Java Applets both made the same fatal mistake: tried to be an entire virtual OS. That made them too complicated, which invites hackers. If they had focused on just UI "serving", they could have been small enough to be manageable.
The browser should have a WYSIWYG mode for when your application needs it. The server could re-scale as needed for different devices based on a layout engine of the designer's choosing. That way one is dealing with one layout engine instead of say 50 (browser brand/version combos). Seems more logical to me. We don't need auto-flow rocket science if we just partition layout engines logically.
I believe Flash and Java Applets both made the same fatal mistake: tried to be an entire virtual OS. That made them too complicated, which invites hackers. If they had focused on just UI "serving", they could have been small enough to be manageable.