Next Gen Static Blogging • Hacker News Board

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#131

Post by gmfawcett » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

still_grokking wrote: post #122

susam wrote: post #30

Note that closing tags are optional † , so one can be an HTML purist and still write a decent HTML document with a relatively clean markup like this: Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis id maximus tortor. Sed nisi ante, fermentum vel nunc et, tincidunt sagittis magna. In ultrices commodo lacus, id tristique ipsum euismod laoreet. Maecenas at neque posuere, aliquet era…

Please never ever break XML compatibility! Not having valid XML in the first place complicates any further processing quite a lot. Also you're going to run into annoying and / or strange issues with tooling. Those HTML shortcuts are just not worth it. Their value is "questionable" (to put it kindly) but down the road their cost can become surprisingly high.

Only one branch of the HTML family tree was ever XML compatible. I was a heavy user of XHTML in the day, so I'm sympathetic... But it's misleading to characterize non-XML variants of HTML as questionable shortcuts.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#132

Post by hombre_fatal » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

still_grokking wrote: post #122

susam wrote: post #30

Note that closing tags are optional † , so one can be an HTML purist and still write a decent HTML document with a relatively clean markup like this: Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis id maximus tortor. Sed nisi ante, fermentum vel nunc et, tincidunt sagittis magna. In ultrices commodo lacus, id tristique ipsum euismod laoreet. Maecenas at neque posuere, aliquet era…

Please never ever break XML compatibility! Not having valid XML in the first place complicates any further processing quite a lot. Also you're going to run into annoying and / or strange issues with tooling. Those HTML shortcuts are just not worth it. Their value is "questionable" (to put it kindly) but down the road their cost can become surprisingly high.

You don’t seem to realize that your post only applies to xhtml doctypes and your concern is extremely outdated to boot.

Use an html parser to parse html.

You also are extremely off on your estimation of how common xhtml is on the web since you thought this would be a useful PSA and you seem unaware of what means here, as it specifically is not xml. I’m not tying to be mean, but you came in with guns blazing with weird advice and it seems very mislead.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#133

Post by johncena33 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

rayrag wrote: post #81

So, instead of using semantic html and css like 'white-space: pre-line' and 'max-width: 40ch' author wrapped content of his blog post into 'code' tag and called it 'next-gen'. What is 'next-gen' about it? Either I am missing something or I'm not drunk enough. Worst thing it has 100 upvotes :/ >Simplicity is key This isn't simplicity... I need a beer.

HN content and discussion quality has gone down drastically over the last few years. And future also looks bleak. These days I spend more time on lesswrong.com community because articles and discussions quality are way better than HN.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#134

Post by anjbe » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:20 PM UTC

still_grokking wrote: post #122

susam wrote: post #30

Note that closing tags are optional † , so one can be an HTML purist and still write a decent HTML document with a relatively clean markup like this: Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis id maximus tortor. Sed nisi ante, fermentum vel nunc et, tincidunt sagittis magna. In ultrices commodo lacus, id tristique ipsum euismod laoreet. Maecenas at neque posuere, aliquet era…

Please never ever break XML compatibility! Not having valid XML in the first place complicates any further processing quite a lot. Also you're going to run into annoying and / or strange issues with tooling. Those HTML shortcuts are just not worth it. Their value is "questionable" (to put it kindly) but down the road their cost can become surprisingly high.

Implicit and optional tags have been part of HTML for decades. A valid HTML page that uses them is completely unambiguous. Nothing prevents it from being parsed and converted to an XML‐compatible document on the fly by tools.

Writing HTML in an XML‐like fashion has its own quirks since HTML is not parsed the same way. Can you add elements within an , or self‐close a ?

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#135

Post by alpaca128 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

mmackh wrote: post #111

Author here: Sorry for not considering accessibility more. I use solarize everywhere - I’ll look into fixing the low contrast issue. As for whether my approach is correct from an SEO or HTML5 validation perspective - evidently not. But I do value the feedback and will take your comments into consideration when expanding my personal site. It’s still a WIP.

I'm also a huge fan of solarized, so I know from some styling experiments with LaTeX documents that solarized just has a bit too little contrast for normal text documents. Which is why I'd recommend adjusting the text brightness - it still looks relatively similar but helps significantly.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#136

Post by lessthanseventy » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:25 PM UTC

jl6 wrote: post #126

onion2k wrote: post #117

I think it's a bit of a shame that this discussion has focused on the tech and (slightly odd) HTML choices here. Those are probably the least interesting parts of any discussion around what a "next gen" blog platform might look like. Where the author is correct about next-gen blogging (in my opinion anyway) is in the attempt to reduce the friction to publishing a new post. What tech stack you use, whether it's static…

IMHO blogs are documents, and HTML is no longer designed for documents but web applications. Blogs need to go back to document publishing formats. It doesn't get more user-friendly than 1. WYSIWYG word processor; 2. Save As PDF; 3. Dump the file on a web host. I'm switching to PDF/A: https://lab6.com/0#page=2

As a visually impaired person please don't. I like being able to resize text and still have the document flow properly instead of endlessly scrolling back and forth.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#137

Post by gmfawcett » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:26 PM UTC

jl6 wrote: post #126

onion2k wrote: post #117

I think it's a bit of a shame that this discussion has focused on the tech and (slightly odd) HTML choices here. Those are probably the least interesting parts of any discussion around what a "next gen" blog platform might look like. Where the author is correct about next-gen blogging (in my opinion anyway) is in the attempt to reduce the friction to publishing a new post. What tech stack you use, whether it's static…

IMHO blogs are documents, and HTML is no longer designed for documents but web applications. Blogs need to go back to document publishing formats. It doesn't get more user-friendly than 1. WYSIWYG word processor; 2. Save As PDF; 3. Dump the file on a web host. I'm switching to PDF/A: https://lab6.com/0#page=2

Excellent article, and a compelling proposition! Thanks for sharing this.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#138

Post by hombre_fatal » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

jl6 wrote: post #126

onion2k wrote: post #117

I think it's a bit of a shame that this discussion has focused on the tech and (slightly odd) HTML choices here. Those are probably the least interesting parts of any discussion around what a "next gen" blog platform might look like. Where the author is correct about next-gen blogging (in my opinion anyway) is in the attempt to reduce the friction to publishing a new post. What tech stack you use, whether it's static…

IMHO blogs are documents, and HTML is no longer designed for documents but web applications. Blogs need to go back to document publishing formats. It doesn't get more user-friendly than 1. WYSIWYG word processor; 2. Save As PDF; 3. Dump the file on a web host. I'm switching to PDF/A: https://lab6.com/0#page=2

PDF is the last way I want to consume content, especially on a smaller device.

I want to read the content, so just give me the content, not a pretentious image of it. Just give me

and image tags. Basic data.

I don’t want your “document”.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#139

Post by rbanffy » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

fsiefken wrote: post #109

susam wrote: post #30

Note that closing tags are optional † , so one can be an HTML purist and still write a decent HTML document with a relatively clean markup like this: Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis id maximus tortor. Sed nisi ante, fermentum vel nunc et, tincidunt sagittis magna. In ultrices commodo lacus, id tristique ipsum euismod laoreet. Maecenas at neque posuere, aliquet era…

It would be valid, but wouldn't Google penalize it for being poor html?

If it doesn't, it should.

It makes the life of parsers a lot harder.

Re: Next Gen Static Blogging

#140

Post by anjbe » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

fsiefken wrote: post #109

susam wrote: post #30

Note that closing tags are optional † , so one can be an HTML purist and still write a decent HTML document with a relatively clean markup like this: Lorem Ipsum Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis id maximus tortor. Sed nisi ante, fermentum vel nunc et, tincidunt sagittis magna. In ultrices commodo lacus, id tristique ipsum euismod laoreet. Maecenas at neque posuere, aliquet era…

It would be valid, but wouldn't Google penalize it for being poor html?

Under what definition is leaving off optional closing tags “poor html”? It is perfectly valid, part of the spec, very widely used, and completely unambiguous.