Live data from Hacker News

On The (2021)

benmyers.dev

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#131
post #119
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you omit unnecessary closing tags As someone who had written lots of XHTML in the past, not having closing tags makes my eyes twitch like Scrat in Ice Age. I even occasionally write ` ` like ` ` out of habit.

> Only occasionally? I will die on this hill. Yes yes, someone is about to tell me that Opera running on a PS Vita with the language set to Basque will display those incorrectly. That ISO 714-4BΔ-鸡冠 defines them as undefined, and prohibits them within eight clock ticks of C sequence points. That Apple charges an extra 1% app store commission for them (except where prohibited by court injunction). Call it a concession…

Someone here. OP most certainly knows that precisely, but for the rest: It was Netscape® Communicator, which interpreted everything after `` as a tag name. Technically that wasn't even that much incorrect, but amusingly, since the HTML "specs" then still stemmed from SGML, the really correct outcome of `
` (and even `` with a space before the "closing" solidus) back then should have been to both emit the (empty, by definition) BR element (⁕) and a dangling `>` text node after that. No consumer-facing HTML client really implemented that. Netscape simply took it as unknown "BR/" tag and didn't render anything in its place.

In the late '90s Netscape was a niche browser with negligible 80% market share. The real and eternal XHTML enlightenment had begun a few years later, in the early 2000s and reached near eternal duration of seven years.

Also, https://jakearchibald.com/2023/against-self-closing-tags-in-... provides a broad perspective on the topic (but I guess it is very unlikely anyone reading this hasn't seen that article already).

Practically, using `` in HTML with space was safe, like, forever, except for original W3C validator and Amaya. Using `
` is safe since around 2002-2008 when Netscape was dying. In 2026, you can throw basically anything at current browsers and it will repair it to something meaningful, as per the living HTML spec. You can go ``, if you are really into solidi, and it will work the same as `
`.

Disclosure: I also clearly see how having stupid simple "XML-like" syntactic rules would be beneficial in the grand scheme of things compared to what HTML became: memorising the "VOID" HTML elements by heart, and having to implement this in every HTML processing product clearly creates significant mental and processing overhead. But FMPoV, it's just one inconvenience we should begrudgingly accept at this point, rather than fight it.

(⁕) In reality, the way browsers treat `
` in the document flow is more like a text node than element node, but it's just an implementation detail orthogonal to this topic.

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#132
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that inconvenient if you omit unnecessary closing tags: first second what ever I find it simpler and cleaner than any of the markdown table markups

> if you omit unnecessary closing tags As someone who had written lots of XHTML in the past, not having closing tags makes my eyes twitch like Scrat in Ice Age. I even occasionally write ` ` like ` ` out of habit.

You cannot close HTML tags that way anyways,
and
are the same, as are and . The spec defines whether an element self-closes, the slash is just ignored.

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#133
post #131
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only occasionally? I will die on this hill. Yes yes, someone is about to tell me that Opera running on a PS Vita with the language set to Basque will display those incorrectly. That ISO 714-4BΔ-鸡冠 defines them as undefined, and prohibits them within eight clock ticks of C sequence points. That Apple charges an extra 1% app store commission for them (except where prohibited by court injunction). Call it a concession…

Someone here. OP most certainly knows that precisely, but for the rest: It was Netscape® Communicator, which interpreted everything after ` ` as a tag name. Technically that wasn't even that much incorrect, but amusingly, since the HTML "specs" then still stemmed from SGML, the really correct outcome of ` ` (and even ` ` with a space before the "closing" solidus) back then should have been to both emit the (empty, by…

Fantastic comment! Really lovely contribution. The sort of thing I come to HN for.

> You can go ``, if you are really into solidi

Love it.

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#134
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bleh. is apparently now bring attention to . As if.

Eh, it's fine, elements should be defined for what they mean, not what they look like. The explanation and distinctions made between and other elements ( , , ) make sense. The suggested (not obligatory) user agent styling for is `font-weight: bolder` an agent or authors could use lots of different things to bring attention to what the element contains and treat it differently from . https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multi…

The entire purpose of an element like is what it looks like. If we're being inclusive, then the entire purpose of an element like is what it looks like, how it sounds, how it feels in Braille, and so on. Nothing more. It does not map to some abstract concept.

It should be defined as: When rendered on a visual display device supporting bold font, it makes the text bold. The specific behavior is not guaranteed and may vary based on the user-agent. For example, screen readers will pronounce the text with emphasis.

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#135
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, it's fine, elements should be defined for what they mean, not what they look like. The explanation and distinctions made between and other elements ( , , ) make sense. The suggested (not obligatory) user agent styling for is `font-weight: bolder` an agent or authors could use lots of different things to bring attention to what the element contains and treat it differently from . https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multi…

The entire purpose of an element like is what it looks like. If we're being inclusive, then the entire purpose of an element like is what it looks like, how it sounds, how it feels in Braille, and so on. Nothing more. It does not map to some abstract concept. It should be defined as: When rendered on a visual display device supporting bold font, it makes the text bold. The specific behavior is not guaranteed and may…

The entire purpose of was what it looked like. They changed its definition to not be about what it looked like but why an author might make it look that way, i.e. to bring attention to it. The representation flows from the motivation, there's no need to embed a look in the definition.

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment put me on a side quest to research the differences between i.e., e.g., viz. and sc. and I have to admit that I’m still not 100% sure

i.e. == aka == in other words e.g. == f.e., for example

"e.g." == exempli gratia == to give an example

"i.e." == id es == that is

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#137
post #133
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone here. OP most certainly knows that precisely, but for the rest: It was Netscape® Communicator, which interpreted everything after ` ` as a tag name. Technically that wasn't even that much incorrect, but amusingly, since the HTML "specs" then still stemmed from SGML, the really correct outcome of ` ` (and even ` ` with a space before the "closing" solidus) back then should have been to both emit the (empty, by…

Fantastic comment! Really lovely contribution. The sort of thing I come to HN for. > You can go ` `, if you are really into solidi Love it.

Haha, blushing in awkward uncertainty that I've failed to detect irony …? (Is this HN, right?) But even if, thanks anyway! I'm glad I could vent the lore I've spent gathering in unhealthy amount of unproductive research; I cannot imagine better place to finally bury that than deep in super-tangential HN discussion…

Re: On The <dl> (2021)

#138
post #137
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fantastic comment! Really lovely contribution. The sort of thing I come to HN for. > You can go ` `, if you are really into solidi Love it.

Haha, blushing in awkward uncertainty that I've failed to detect irony …? (Is this HN, right?) But even if, thanks anyway! I'm glad I could vent the lore I've spent gathering in unhealthy amount of unproductive research; I cannot imagine better place to finally bury that than deep in super-tangential HN discussion…

No no, dead earnest. I'm a big believer in honest compliments, where merited.

Please start writing a blog, if you don't already. If I could compose a blog roll of people writing fun CS histories, I would replace my HN bookmark with it.

Post reply on HN