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

XHTML Club

xhtml.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: XHTML Club

#81

Post by assimpleaspossi »

jraph wrote: post #68
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.

Let's just say that I don't think the truths you are pushing are as absolute as you seem to think, and I think they are a reflect of how you view the world more than anything. And that by correcting people that mention HTML5, you will probably just annoy people without achieving anything worth it. That would be true even if you are absolutely correct. It's peak "well, actually", with the twist it might not even actua…

I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand, despite my pointing to online documentation, is that placing closing slashes on some elements can cause harm and that no HTML standard tells you to put one there or has ever required it. Yet they argue with me anyway. Much like you argue with me about this. And that's when I stop.

Re: XHTML Club

#83

Post by yomismoaqui »

notnullorvoid wrote: post #71
jraph wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will leave you yearning for the return of XHTML. …or be grateful you can just use an existing HTML5 parser that hides all this stuff to your innocent eyes :-)

Grateful in part, but I can't help to think that if there was refusal to build parsers for an outlandish spec in the first place then we'd have fixed the problem by now. Using existing parsers only hides the poor design up to a point.

Nowadays you can use AI to write the parser, so it's the machine the one that suffers I guess.

https://friendlybit.com/python/writing-justhtml-with-coding-...

Re: XHTML Club

#84

Post by OptionOfT »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #81
jraph wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just say that I don't think the truths you are pushing are as absolute as you seem to think, and I think they are a reflect of how you view the world more than anything. And that by correcting people that mention HTML5, you will probably just annoy people without achieving anything worth it. That would be true even if you are absolutely correct. It's peak "well, actually", with the twist it might not even actua…

I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen. For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand…

Can you share some of the links you'd share?

I'm someone who still lives in the XHTML world and pedantically close all of my elements. Seems like I need a knowledge refresher.

(and by the way, I could Google this, or any other chatbots, but I want to hear from your experience).

Re: XHTML Club

#85

Post by PaulHoule »

jraph wrote: post #79
PaulHoule wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One threshold is "can you write a program that might not complete?" You can't in SQL, which makes it less of a programming language than, say, FORTRAN. If you look at the HTML 5 spec it is clear that it's intended to be a substrate for applications. The HTML 5 spec could be factored into a specification of the DOM, specification of an x-language API for the DOM and a specification for a serialization format as well a…

> If you look at the HTML 5 spec it is clear that it's intended to be a substrate for applications That's the saddest thing I've read today. (arguably not a terribly sad day)

Back when it was fashionable to complain about how every Electron application has 30 MB of bloat I did an eval of all the options for x-platform applications that weren't Electron and came to the conclusion that "they all sucked" except for maybe JavaFX -- and not everybody likes Java as much as I do.

Building up to Win 8, Microsoft pushed for grid and flexbox which are the bees knees for laying out applications in HTML.

Compare the annoying nag dialogs in MacOS and Windows. MacOS nags you to buy into Apple Music and other unwanted services with 2025 reskins of the 1999 reskins of the modal dialogs from the 1984 Mac Classic. Windows does the same with ads that look like advertising which I find more visually appealing even if the services are unappealing.

Every time I think about writing a GUI application that's not a web application I think "this is a waste of time" whereas my web applications keep finding new lives as mobile applications, VR applications, etc.

Re: XHTML Club

#86

Post by [deleted] »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #63
jraph wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite. Assuming you are right and HTML5 doesn't exist. What would be the actual bad outcomes of the following? - believing HTML5 exists - silently choosing to understand what someone mentioning HTML5 obviously meant

I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#87

Post by cxr »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #63
jraph wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite. Assuming you are right and HTML5 doesn't exist. What would be the actual bad outcomes of the following? - believing HTML5 exists - silently choosing to understand what someone mentioning HTML5 obviously meant

I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.

Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard.

It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists.

That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their current work the "Living Standard" doesn't erase that fact, any more than the W3C's publication of the third edition of the PNG standard last summer means that earlier editions "don't exist".

Re: XHTML Club

#88

Post by assimpleaspossi »

cxr wrote: post #87
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.

Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard. It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists. That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their c…

Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.

Re: XHTML Club

#89

Post by assimpleaspossi »

OptionOfT wrote: post #84
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen. For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand…

Can you share some of the links you'd share? I'm someone who still lives in the XHTML world and pedantically close all of my elements. Seems like I need a knowledge refresher. (and by the way, I could Google this, or any other chatbots, but I want to hear from your experience).

https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Vo...

https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Vo...

https://www.matsimon.dev/blog/to-close-or-not-to-close

https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/737

There's more.

Re: XHTML Club

#90

Post by jraph »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #81
jraph wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just say that I don't think the truths you are pushing are as absolute as you seem to think, and I think they are a reflect of how you view the world more than anything. And that by correcting people that mention HTML5, you will probably just annoy people without achieving anything worth it. That would be true even if you are absolutely correct. It's peak "well, actually", with the twist it might not even actua…

I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen. For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand…

At this point, closing slashes for void elements is coding style, exactly like white space we use for indentation. You can't be right because this is in opinion territory. Exactly like whether one should put semicolons or not in JavaScript when you have automatic semicolon insertion. Some people have strong opinions on the matter. Putting them has drawbacks, and not putting them too, and in both cases, readability and clarity, which is subjective, is a factor.

You are right that it has drawbacks and that it can bite. OTOH, people using closing slashes usually also quote all their attributes and will virtually never be bitten by this.

But people have backgrounds and habits, there's culture around a language like HTML, and these backgrounds are cultures have been shaped by XHTML.

Whether to put or not to put the slash is a healthy conversation to have and there are valid points for both, but if you are arguing like you are doing here for HTML5, considering "they don't bother to understand", you'll lose your arguments and people will find you annoying.

Some people feel bad about not closing br with a slash because it kinda feels like unmatched parentheses, or old malformed HTML from the 90's. That's not reasonable, but for the better or the worse, you can't just ignore this.

Some people sometimes write XML, and when they switch to HTML, their XML habits are there, and following habits especially when they are mostly harmless is efficient.

Some people write polyglot (X)HTML for some reason, and there the slash is needed.

There are reasons to put the slash, like there are reasons not to write it, and you can't just impose your truths like this.

Post reply on HN