51–60 of 97 posts
Good work, but why is client-side JS needed for a simple blog? I thought it was going to be like Jekyll but Node instead of Ruby (so no JS client-side).
You probably want to look at Hexo - https://hexo.io/
Full Disclosure: I built Zammu.
I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want to encourage the proliferation of websites (web apps---as an alternative to actual desktop software---excluded) that require JavaScript to function at all. Sites using JS only cannot be parsed by standard tools---I can't cURL the page, use wget, use a text-mode browser, etc. This fundamentally breaks interoperability, and limits users' freedom to use the tool/brow…
[0]: https://dyladan.me
I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want to encourage the proliferation of websites (web apps---as an alternative to actual desktop software---excluded) that require JavaScript to function at all. Sites using JS only cannot be parsed by standard tools---I can't cURL the page, use wget, use a text-mode browser, etc. This fundamentally breaks interoperability, and limits users' freedom to use the tool/brow…
The choice to block JS seems a bit weird to me. JS, to my eyes, is very different to binary code running in userland. It is a sandboxed language with very clear restrictions to what it may do, it is easily read and verified (view source, pass it through a prettifier, and all that's left to fix is the variable names), and even hackable (we get a JS console in browsers).
What is it that makes JS so dangerous it must be blocked 100% ?
I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want to encourage the proliferation of websites (web apps---as an alternative to actual desktop software---excluded) that require JavaScript to function at all. Sites using JS only cannot be parsed by standard tools---I can't cURL the page, use wget, use a text-mode browser, etc. This fundamentally breaks interoperability, and limits users' freedom to use the tool/brow…
I'm pretty sure there's no "intended way" to use the web. The developer of the website dictates this. If he wishes to use JS-only, that is his choice. He may lose you as a user/reader, but he certainly is using the web "as intended". The choice to block JS seems a bit weird to me. JS, to my eyes, is very different to binary code running in userland. It is a sandboxed language with very clear restrictions to what it m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do we stand on the whole SEO issue at hand? I recall Google experimenting with it a few years ago but have not heard much back since.
Google has been able to handle javascript in pages for a while now: http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascri...
I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want to encourage the proliferation of websites (web apps---as an alternative to actual desktop software---excluded) that require JavaScript to function at all. Sites using JS only cannot be parsed by standard tools---I can't cURL the page, use wget, use a text-mode browser, etc. This fundamentally breaks interoperability, and limits users' freedom to use the tool/brow…
I'm pretty sure there's no "intended way" to use the web. The developer of the website dictates this. If he wishes to use JS-only, that is his choice. He may lose you as a user/reader, but he certainly is using the web "as intended". The choice to block JS seems a bit weird to me. JS, to my eyes, is very different to binary code running in userland. It is a sandboxed language with very clear restrictions to what it m…
I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want to encourage the proliferation of websites (web apps---as an alternative to actual desktop software---excluded) that require JavaScript to function at all. Sites using JS only cannot be parsed by standard tools---I can't cURL the page, use wget, use a text-mode browser, etc. This fundamentally breaks interoperability, and limits users' freedom to use the tool/brow…
I know there seem to be two rather large groups on HN, one for proliferation of JS and one against, but at the very least if someone from the latter visits your site, please show something better than an entirely blank page . (I'm speaking of the demo, not the actual site describing it --- although I thought it would be hosted with itself.) As for the idea of turning static content sites into client-side JS-rendered…
Yep, and the worse offender seems to be Quora that seems to have its main page receive all its data from java script (which as a side effect makes scrolling annoyingly slow). But it's probably on purpose since they are preventing copy/pasting so it's impossible to quote text from their website without linking to them in some way.
i can't get it to run. it's cloned to danielovich.github.io but then it breaks! :/
TiddlyWiki[1], which is a wiki more than a "CMS", has been doing something very close to this for quite some time. I used it for years, but eventually switched back to plain text files for notes. I use Jekyll for blogging and generating my portfolio site too, but right now I can only update my those from my own laptop with my Jekyll install which is not always great. CMS.js would be something else... My dream would b…