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

My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website

naya.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 547 posts

Re: My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website

#243

Post by kennyadam »

im3w1l wrote: post #222
nathell wrote: post #29

Exactly as I would do it if I were a 7yo. Speak what you will about the virtues of CSS and semantic markup, these things get in the way of having fun. And can be learned later.

The issue with this is that it lacks the semantic - styling separation of proper modern HTML with CSS. Like compare that mess to the elegant semantic structure of a state of the art webpage like google.com

Beautiful in it's simplicity. I also admire how much JavaScript modern websites can stuff down my throat without the mereist whiff of necessity.

Re: My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website

#245

Post by chrismorgan »

thehesiod wrote: post #154
chrismorgan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reckon it does hurt, beyond the negligible cost of the extra transferred and parsed bytes: it teaches something that’s simply incorrect, and doesn’t do what people often think it does. ① The trailing slash doesn’t make a tag self-closing. All it does is get ignored, emitting a parse error (which in common compiler terms is just a warning) if you use it on a non-void tag. You can’t use . You can’t use . The only tag…

IIRC, that's not necessarily true, some parsers "upgrade" html to xhtml and then process the xhtml since its more regular. html in general is a mess due to backwards compatibility requirements so trying to follow these kind of definitions imo is kinda pointless. you can optimize for size if you want but the decrease from these kind of optimizations with modern speeds is rather minimal

> some parsers "upgrade" html to xhtml and then process the xhtml since its more regular.

I have never heard of anything even vaguely matching your description, and it would be wildly wrong. HTML parsing is exhaustively defined, and the only way of correctly parsing HTML is to use the defined HTML parser.

Re: My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website

#246

Post by HaZeust »

I often hear about the simplicity form factors of the internet in a bygone era, before my time, in the mid to late 90's. Now, from all the stories I've heard and the visuals I've seen, someone that's a third of my age now seems to be delivering that spirit of simplicity back :)

Re: My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website

#248

Post by HaZeust »

volkadav wrote: post #158

it's good to see a little person having fun with all this technocrap that us grognards have gotten so bitter about over the years/decades. :) i hope she continues to have a blast! (from the dedication page in SICP:) “I think that it’s extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customers got shafted every now and t…

Kind of reminds me of the quote from the Steve Jobs movie:

"The most efficient animal on the planet is a condor. The most inefficient animals on the planet are humans. But a human with a bicycle becomes the most efficient animal. And the right computer -- a friendly, easy computer that isn’t an eyesore but rather sits on your desk with the beauty of a tensor lamp -- the right computer will be a bicycle for the mind. A beautiful object -- perfect geometry, perfect finish, something you want to look at and have in your home. Flawless. And then a personal computer becomes an interpersonal computer. And what if instead of it being in the right hands, it was in everyone’s hands?"

Re: My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website

#249

Post by jchw »

vundercind wrote: post #218
jchw wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I necessarily advocate for frameset insanity, but you know what? That is a shame. My controversial (?) opinion is that browsers should literally never break anything that was once a part of the web platform unless there's simply no other choice. If the size of it is getting too big... first, stop adding more shit. (And then maybe, implement some old features in terms of some newer ones. Not really "web platf…

I’ll go a step farther: improved frames and datasource-aware tables and lists with a few very basic features found in almost any other UI kit out of the box would have given us 99% of the actually-beneficial stuff AJAX did, but better. The Web is a ton worse because we decided to build apps on it but never built the tools to do it right, even though the building blocks were right there .

IMO the biggest problem with the way frames works is that it doesn't work well with navigation. I think unfortunately that this is just a design flaw with frames and it needed breaking changes to mitigate.

I think I would've rather seen it go that direction, but it's hard to say. Without a crystal ball, we can't really compare the outcomes, and it's hard to imagine what would've happened in this hypothetical. I mean, I don't think in 2004 I would've been able to guess (or stomach) what the web was going to become 20 years down the road.

Post reply on HN