Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Write HTML Like It's 1999

bradleytaunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#111

Post by kolanos »

SquareWheel wrote: post #63

The author is arguing for semantic markup, but prior to HTML5 the concept barely existed. Everything was kludged together. Site layouts were tables. Later divs/spans ruled. Eventually sanity reigned and semantic elements were introduced. So while I don't disagree with what they're saying, the title is a bit of a misnomer. >[Don't] create tables built out of custom div elements Tables aren't responsive. Those fancy di…

> Tables aren't responsive. Those fancy div tables are used because they work better on mobile.

Oh yeah? Then what does Bootsttrap's table-responsive class do? The tag can collapse just like any grid/flexbox mess.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#112

Post by arendtio »

While I agree that semantic HTML is a nice thing, I am also confused because the HTML I saw in 1999 didn't look like what the author suggests. If I am not completely mistaken, nav is an HTML5 element that didn't even exist back then.

Instead, we used tables inside tables insides tables inside iframes to structure our navigations. CSS was still some mystic magic that only a few wizards knew how to use effectively. And in many cases, the result was actually less semantic than what we see nowadays.

So the arguments seem a bit odd, although I support the spirit of the message.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#113

Post by SquareWheel »

kolanos wrote: post #111
SquareWheel wrote: post #63

The author is arguing for semantic markup, but prior to HTML5 the concept barely existed. Everything was kludged together. Site layouts were tables. Later divs/spans ruled. Eventually sanity reigned and semantic elements were introduced. So while I don't disagree with what they're saying, the title is a bit of a misnomer. >[Don't] create tables built out of custom div elements Tables aren't responsive. Those fancy di…

> Tables aren't responsive. Those fancy div tables are used because they work better on mobile. Oh yeah? Then what does Bootsttrap's table-responsive class do? The tag can collapse just like any grid/flexbox mess.

>Then what does Bootsttrap's table-responsive class do?

From a cursory glance, it slaps a horizontal scrollbar on them.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#114

Post by bo1024 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #109
bo1024 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) Fingerprinting and tracking in general are heavily javascript-focused. Less common in practice (I assume), but still possible, are 4) Rowhammer or Spectre/Meltdown style attacks that break out of the permission system. Finally, there's general trickery, manipulation, and malware, like trying to embed a frame from Facebook and steal user credentials or so on (I'm fuzzy on these sorts of attacks, not an expert).

3) Right - and I guess "fingerprinting" goes slightly beyond cookies - but when people say "execute arbitrary code" they typically imply something has free-reign, which JavaScript generally doesn't. 4) True, although it's my understanding that the exploits are hard to implement, doubly-so from an abstracted layer like JavaScript. > trickery, manipulation...like trying to embed a frame from Facebook and steal user cre…

Good point on 3. I guess the main point is browsers at least disallow reading and writing arbitrary files directly.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#115

Post by Jaruzel »

trnglina wrote: post #12
whalesalad wrote: post #3

Instead of a border I tend to have a debug helper that adds a 1px outline of cyan or pink. To get the “bones” of a component or page. Good advice. Definitely sounds like captain obvious but it’s also something I think needs to be said.

And for anyone who isn't familiar with (what I would consider) the most important difference in this use-case: borders affect the positioning of other elements, whereas outlines do not. You don't want to be using a temporary border, since it can significantly affect the layout of your site when you remove it.

When I'm coding DIV layouts by hand, I temporarily assign each DIV with a random background-color. Once I have the layout and responsiveness required, I strip the background-color setting on each DIV as I fill them up with content. Works for me.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#116

Post by timClicks »

dehrmann wrote: post #104

My biggest gripe with how modern html is written is not using tags for link-like things. I often center click to open links in new tabs (Chrome and Firefox support this), but the way links have changed to with a listener attached that navigates to a new page--sometimes in a new window--really annoys me.

That's one of the underlying messages of this article. We're replacing elements with semantic meaning, such as , with poorly implemented alternatives. Discarding is part of that.

Some web designers just really want full control, even if that makes for a shoddy user experience.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#117

Post by majewsky »

arendtio wrote: post #112

While I agree that semantic HTML is a nice thing, I am also confused because the HTML I saw in 1999 didn't look like what the author suggests. If I am not completely mistaken, nav is an HTML5 element that didn't even exist back then. Instead, we used tables inside tables insides tables inside iframes to structure our navigations. CSS was still some mystic magic that only a few wizards knew how to use effectively. And…

> tables inside tables inside framesets

FTFY

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#118

Post by detaro »

klogd wrote: post #78
asymptotically2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can upgrade your browser but you can't upgrade to a body that isn't disabled (yet)

I agree. But I mean it in the sense that they are a very low % of users and you have to ponder if it makes sense to spend the money to support them.

The basics of using the semantic tags are easy enough that I'd question if that counts as "spending money" in any relevant amount.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#119

Post by SquareWheel »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #95
doc_gunthrop wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Content being heavily reliant on JavaScript “injection” Salient point right here. Being served a blank white page (when JS is disabled) can deter a person from ever visiting a site again. Some peope out there want to vet a site before allowing it to run arbitrary code on their machine.

Sadly, the majority of web devs don’t give a rat’s butt about those users.

All they do is complain, make special demands, then go on to block ads anyway. It makes it hard to care about those users.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#120

Post by majewsky »

rolltiide wrote: post #37
justjonathan wrote: post #8

It is embarrassing, but I only know how to write HTML like it’s 1999. The last new thing I learned was an iframe, the kids tell me CSS something I should learn...

iframes have had a wild ride in acceptance 1999 - Cool and Clever 2005 - Horrible 2010 - Horrible but sometimes necessary 2015 - Awesome

> 2015 - Awesome

Huh, what happened?

Post reply on HN