I don't think there's any good solution to the dead link problem. For example there are 11 links in this article: https://jeffhuang.com/ https://gomakethings.com/the-web-is-not-dying/ https://archivebox.io/ https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25315/hotlinking-what-is-it-and-why-shouldnt-people-do-it https://goaccess.io/ https://victorzhou.com/blog/minify-svgs/ https://evilmartians.com/chronicles/images-don…
As many times as the article literally tells you will be necessary? One of the key points about links it makes is to use a link checker if you do link out.
HMTL was a bad idea that just kept sprouting cancerous growths on top of itself. Just like the author recommends not using non-web fonts, we honestly don't need much markup beyond "monospace", "em", "strong", "title 1-5", and "p". Everything else HTML does is a huge distraction. In the past thirty years, there have only been a few actual kinds of content: - Article - Comment - Reference manual Nothing really deviates…
I fundamentally agree with the principle -- that pages should be designed to survive a long time -- however the steps the author lays out I completely disagree with. "The more libraries incorporated into the website, the more fragile it becomes" is just fundamentally untrue in a world where you're self-hosting all of your scripts. "Prefer one page over several" is diametrically opposed to the hypertext model. Please…
>Use whatever typography you want, so long as you self host the woff files. or use Google Web fonts, and set let last option in your font-family to be "serif" or "sans-serif" to let an appropriate typeface be used if your third-party font is unreachable. That's the beauty of text, the content should still be readable even if your desired font is unavailable.
Google Web Fonts are not an "or", here. Fonts have disappeared from it, and there is no reason to not expect Google to, at some point in the future, go: "you know what, this costs too much without any substantial return." And now it's just another killedbygoogle.com product. Just like images, self-hosting woff/woff2 should be step 1.
This website needs to scale text better on mobile (on an iPhone) so it's not hard to read. Especially for a post advocating on using vanilla HTML and how nice and powerful it is.
I don't think I particularly disagree with any of the post, but I found it a little long-winded.
There's no reason why a web browser bookmark action doesn't automatically create a WARC (web archive) format. Heck, with the cost of storage so low, recording every webpage you ever visit in searchable format is also very realistic. Imagine having the last 30 years of web browsing history saved on your local machine. This would especially be useful when in research mode and deep diving a topic. [1] https://github.com…
Firefox actually purges history automatically. For instance, the oldest history I have on this browser right now is from January 2018. I found about this the hard way.
There's no reason why a web browser bookmark action doesn't automatically create a WARC (web archive) format. Heck, with the cost of storage so low, recording every webpage you ever visit in searchable format is also very realistic. Imagine having the last 30 years of web browsing history saved on your local machine. This would especially be useful when in research mode and deep diving a topic. [1] https://github.com…
It would be nice if we had browsers that were actually user-agents that allow full pluggable customizability for all cookie, header, UI, request, and history behavior. Then, this would just be a plugin that anyone could install.
HMTL was a bad idea that just kept sprouting cancerous growths on top of itself. Just like the author recommends not using non-web fonts, we honestly don't need much markup beyond "monospace", "em", "strong", "title 1-5", and "p". Everything else HTML does is a huge distraction. In the past thirty years, there have only been a few actual kinds of content: - Article - Comment - Reference manual Nothing really deviates…
I agree, it is correct, we do not need much markup other than the five you specified, plus hyperlinks; those are good enough. Yes, the client should decides how it looks.
There's no reason why a web browser bookmark action doesn't automatically create a WARC (web archive) format. Heck, with the cost of storage so low, recording every webpage you ever visit in searchable format is also very realistic. Imagine having the last 30 years of web browsing history saved on your local machine. This would especially be useful when in research mode and deep diving a topic. [1] https://github.com…
I actually this week asked the author of SingleFile if he could implement a save-on-bookmark feature for SingleFile, and he was amenable: https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile/issues/320
Nice. FYI there's also SingleFileZ
> SingleFileZ is a fork of SingleFile that allows you to save a webpage as a self-extracting HTML file. This HTML file is also a valid ZIP file which contains the resources (images, fonts, stylesheets and frames) of the saved page.
HMTL was a bad idea that just kept sprouting cancerous growths on top of itself. Just like the author recommends not using non-web fonts, we honestly don't need much markup beyond "monospace", "em", "strong", "title 1-5", and "p". Everything else HTML does is a huge distraction. In the past thirty years, there have only been a few actual kinds of content: - Article - Comment - Reference manual Nothing really deviates…
I agree, it is correct, we do not need much markup other than the five you specified, plus hyperlinks; those are good enough. Yes, the client should decides how it looks.
I'd include lists and tables for data presentation. Also, we may want some (additional) tags to manage footnotes and references (these were in SGMLguid, but didn't make it into HTML.)