Not excatly like this, but there is another project, https://jasonelle.com, that renders JSON to Android and iOS applications :)
Nice project though!
Show HN: This website is valid JSON
191–200 of 240 posts
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#192This is a really cool hack. > The JSON must contain only pure information without any concern about design or markup. Wellll.. I mean the json has markdown syntax in it. That's a lot nicer than html tags for markup, but it's still markup. In case anyone reading hasn't seen it before, browsers have a thing called XSLT built into them that does something similar for XML documents. You serve up your data as XML, add a t…
> browsers have a thing called XSLT built into them
I don't think they actually do anymore, not all of them for sure.
> web standards folks in the early 2000s thought the future was XML all the way down
Yes. What fools, to think that machine-produced content transmitted from machine to machine and displayed throw other machines would be better handled and more accessible if formatted in machine-friendly ways that were still readable to humans...
But it wasn't to be, not just because XSLT was somewhat botched (way too hard, way too many enterprise-looking warts...) and probably insecure, but because people are too lazy to produce readable markup (who wouldn't get tired of reading our tools!"), and the game was up.
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
The page says: > I'm creating a blog platform using this concept. Yeah, please don’t; this is an abomination that’s fun for demonstrating and teaching how these things work, but should absolutely never be used in reality. You could use this as your data model foundation upon which to build a generator , but you should never under any circumstances actually serve this stuff.
This is such a depressing comment. It's the opposite of the hacker spirit. The web has made it easier than ever to discourage people from trying anything new. New ideas seem like bad ideas, because otherwise people would be doing them. One could imagine your objection applying to React: "What a horrible idea. It's a nice hack, but under no circumstances should you actually build webpages like this. Webpages are built…
But what do you think one gains by serving json instead of serving valid html like a body with just ``?
If you can retain full functionality (and hack on your ideas) AND be standards compliant (to make sure someone who decides to start offering a new web browser doesn't have to worry about 10% of websites serving this instead of valid HTML), then you should do that.
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#194Or you could... you know.. do type negotiation per-request based on the Accept header, and serve the rendered markup sans JSON bullshit to clients requesting markup, and the JSON data to clients requesting JSON.
I know it's a complex idea, and it's hard to grasp ideas when they're first proposed, but the payoff is often worth the time invested. Even though it's only been 24 years since the RFC defining the Accept header was published, maybe it'd be worth spending say, 10 minutes reading about what it is, rather than however long it took you to write this abomination?
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#195This is the most far away thing possible from server side rendering, correct?
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the difference is that nothing in React is abusing fault tolerance in a browser to the extent that this is. This very specifically works only because browsers don't generally care that an HTML page is anything close to valid HTML. There's no guarantee at all that this will continue to be the case, and it's resonable to assume that some browser in the future might decide to do render things that are very clear…
In fact, at least Firefox already has support for displaying JSON files. I assume this does not happen here because eventually, there actually is an tag.
Content-Type header.
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#197that's why we got user-agent.
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#198Yes yes, sperate content and markup/style. But you can already do this with HTML? The only advantage I see is that you can actually support markdown like you do in your page, since it's less verbose than HTML-tags and doesn't make the text unreadable if you read it as plain text. But with HTML5 you can introduce arbitrary tag names to pretty much get the same with an XML-like structure instead of json. Just use and s…
a huge advantage is that you could begin webdesign anew without all the baggage from old html standards
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a depressing comment. It's the opposite of the hacker spirit. The web has made it easier than ever to discourage people from trying anything new. New ideas seem like bad ideas, because otherwise people would be doing them. One could imagine your objection applying to React: "What a horrible idea. It's a nice hack, but under no circumstances should you actually build webpages like this. Webpages are built…
This is just a bad idea. Apart from abusing browser rendering quirks (which is unfortunately a sad tradition of the web, something that has claimed the life of entire technology stacks like xml/xhtml), it removes any hope of producing webpages accessible from screen readers and similar. In comparison, JS-only pages look like model citizens. This is the equivalent of abusing IE hot-comments and other CSS-parsing bugs…
If JS generated sites can support ARIA then I don't really see why this couldn't do the same thing since it's just a JS site with a funky initial payload.
The "fun" of this site is that it's its own API. Sure there are better ways to accomplish this but abusing quirks for fun and profit is the hacker spirit.
Re: Show HN: This website is valid JSON
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a depressing comment. It's the opposite of the hacker spirit. The web has made it easier than ever to discourage people from trying anything new. New ideas seem like bad ideas, because otherwise people would be doing them. One could imagine your objection applying to React: "What a horrible idea. It's a nice hack, but under no circumstances should you actually build webpages like this. Webpages are built…
The primary reason for calling it an abomination is that if they actually plan on having this used (especially if by other people) it will spectacularly break the moment Chrome decides to make their quirks mode more strict. It's a fun hack, although not exactly very unique. See also the very old by now "Website in a PNG file" concept, which does the exact same thing: https://gist.github.com/gasman/2560551
This will never break. I still think it's a bad idea, but not for that reason. Browser vendors are strongly against ever making backwards incompatible changes - especially a change like this that would likely affect thousands of websites. Chrome is not going to suddenly make their HTML rendering engine more strict.