Inspect any major website, you’ll see boilerplate of <div><div><div><div> and unreadable pile of JavaScript programs your browser need to run to build the website.
Sites should be done in a way that is still readable after you disable one element (for example disable CSS function, scripts or HTML specific tag).
Internet is modular, based on stacked protocols. Want to fit Tor between TCP and HTTP? No problem.
Web is also like that, build of semi-independent formats, in theory. But in practice devs are using frameworks that assume Chrome, Firefox and Safari are and would ever be the only things existing. Now if you want to develop new browser you not only need to display HTML and add other things later. You need to get all specifications of all standards working right away or sites would spectacularly break.</div></div></div></div>
It’s a bit of a shame that HTML went from describing documents to describing UIs. I do miss the days of simple websites, although I’m not old enough to remember the old old internet.
What’s the alternative? Or an alternative I guess I should say. I agree though, I wish folks would use HTML for all documents. Like why the hell am I downloading a PDF of a thing I’m never printing? (PDFs are still acceptable for printing though.)
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using HTML/XML-ish format for describing a UI (although having a standardized presentation format that all “viewers/browsers” follow exactly the same way would be nice), I’m just sad that websites have become described as UIs rather than as well-structured documents.
Yes, the issue is with web developers not following standards. However, because all of them fail to do this, the problem ends up being with the browser that doesn’t support everyone’s non-standard developments.
I just want my text in the centre of the page (not with rows stretched across a widescreen monitor) and for things to not jump about as they load. Figure out where things should go, then display it.
Inspect any major website, you’ll see boilerplate of
<div><div><div><div>and unreadable pile of JavaScript programs your browser need to run to build the website. Sites should be done in a way that is still readable after you disable one element (for example disable CSS function, scripts or HTML specific tag).Internet is modular, based on stacked protocols. Want to fit Tor between TCP and HTTP? No problem. Web is also like that, build of semi-independent formats, in theory. But in practice devs are using frameworks that assume Chrome, Firefox and Safari are and would ever be the only things existing. Now if you want to develop new browser you not only need to display HTML and add other things later. You need to get all specifications of all standards working right away or sites would spectacularly break.</div></div></div></div>
It’s a bit of a shame that HTML went from describing documents to describing UIs. I do miss the days of simple websites, although I’m not old enough to remember the old old internet.
What’s the alternative? Or an alternative I guess I should say. I agree though, I wish folks would use HTML for all documents. Like why the hell am I downloading a PDF of a thing I’m never printing? (PDFs are still acceptable for printing though.)
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using HTML/XML-ish format for describing a UI (although having a standardized presentation format that all “viewers/browsers” follow exactly the same way would be nice), I’m just sad that websites have become described as UIs rather than as well-structured documents.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, the issue is with web developers not following standards. However, because all of them fail to do this, the problem ends up being with the browser that doesn’t support everyone’s non-standard developments.
I just want my text in the centre of the page (not with rows stretched across a widescreen monitor) and for things to not jump about as they load. Figure out where things should go, then display it.
Web standards? You talk funny, funny man
https://xkcd.com/927/