https://codepen.io/anon/pen/OZxqMo?editors=1000 sublime text with vim and drag and drop files and tabs. why? why not? idk.
Show HN: ~200 byte in-browser, no JS, private notepad
71–75 of 75 posts
Re: Show HN: ~200 byte in-browser, no JS, private notepad
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To save a note just store it on disk (cmd/ctrl+s). What's this supposed to do? On Firefox/Win it just saves the initial blank page as you'd expect, which is not very useful. Removing the `contenteditable` attribute before saving makes no difference. I'm not aware that there is a simple portable way to save dynamically-modified webpages; projects like TiddlyWiki have been banging their collective heads against this…
> I'm not aware that there is a simple portable way to save dynamically-modified webpages; projects like TiddlyWiki have been banging their collective heads against this problem since forever. You might be interested in a new way to create websites I'm creating. Websites are stored as JSON, and a small Javascript engine file writes these directly to the DOM. This makes the site very easy to dynamically modify and sav…
I'm not sure how that helps with the problem we're talking about. The value proposition of something like TiddlyWiki is that your site is just a file. For local use you don't even need a webserver.
Making Node or similar a prerequisite kills that value proposition stone dead, never mind piling on things like S3 as backends.
Re: Show HN: ~200 byte in-browser, no JS, private notepad
#73For the record, here's the smallest notepad with local persistence we've golfed in JS: http://xem.github.io/postit/
(github: https://github.com/xem/postit/)
Re: Show HN: ~200 byte in-browser, no JS, private notepad
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not aware that there is a simple portable way to save dynamically-modified webpages; projects like TiddlyWiki have been banging their collective heads against this problem since forever. You might be interested in a new way to create websites I'm creating. Websites are stored as JSON, and a small Javascript engine file writes these directly to the DOM. This makes the site very easy to dynamically modify and sav…
I'm not sure how that helps with the problem we're talking about. The value proposition of something like TiddlyWiki is that your site is just a file . For local use you don't even need a webserver. Making Node or similar a prerequisite kills that value proposition stone dead, never mind piling on things like S3 as backends.
> your site is just a file. For local use you don't even need a webserver.
This is true for this new system as well. The browser engine is only needed to write JSON to the DOM, since browsers don't natively read JSON. You could host both on your SSD and point a webpage at them. (XHR caching is a to-do item.)
S3 is used because it's relatively common and trusted. Node (or any server) is just used to facilitate writing to S3. Node specifically is used because it's simpler to develop everything in one language, and that's the only language that runs in browsers.
Re: Show HN: ~200 byte in-browser, no JS, private notepad
#75Neat - although scrolling doesn't seem to work for me.