I am talking about the full stack from the lower layers all the way up, integration with peripherals, audio engines,GPGPU, 3D that doesn't look like Glide demos, ability to fully utilize any kid of wireless communication,composition engine, GUI components, security, 2D acceleration that is guaranteed to always work, ...
Doesn't UWP also try to provide all of that? The only difference I see is that HTML5 comes with a formally defined standard, so it is possible to build more than one implementation by different parties, while UWP is proprietary.
I don't understand why you think providing all those services in UWP is a good thing, but extending HTML5 + the Javascript VM to cover them would be a terrible idea.
> I don't understand why you think providing all those services in UWP is a good thing, but extending HTML5 + the Javascript VM to cover them would be a terrible idea.
It is not that is a terrible idea, it is that it will never happen, thus always being a 2nd class UI/UX.
I am still waiting for a version of WebGL that can actually fully use my graphics card, WebGL 2.0 surely isn't it yet.
Or for web components to be ready across devices and multiple browsers. How many years has Google been talking about them at Google IO now?
Never happen? Unreal Engine has been ported to WebAssembly. Sure it's not part of the standard, but it runs on the platform. I'm sure Vulkan could get the same treatment.
Once you have a development stack with a good toolchain and widely available on many platforms, many people will be interested , and it will grow. Having a standardization body that will incorporate the best is a good thing to have, but it's not a requirement for the platform to get the tech support by third parties (see what happened with Flash or Silverlight, which required a separate unsupported engine as a plugin). Having a single target will surely accelerate development?
