121–130 of 157 posts
> The specification must contain a non-ambiguous formal grammar that can be parsed easily. A page can then be tested against the standard and reject or accept as compliant. Pages that don't conform with the specification won't be rendered. It is explicitly forbidden for clients to accept any page that doesn't conform with the specification. This is what XHTML was, and it was a complete disaster. There's a reason almo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't that be a source for vulnerabilities?
Missing closing tags in html no.
setTimeout(10000, () => {
safeEval();
});
window.safeEval = code => eval(code);
const notTooSafe = window.safeEval;
window.safeEval = code => {
if (code.any(c => !c.isDigit())) throw "unsafe";
return notTooSafe(code);
};
That sound really like a big bad idea to me.
We kinda sorta almost had that for a short period with Flash (and Java, I guess): a webpage either didn't use flash and was secure and efficient like opening a document, or it did use flash and was featureful and interactive like an application. Users and system administrators could block Flash or enable it conditionally while expecting most of the web to continue to work, which in hindsight was actually pretty nice from a security perspective.
What if the new web doesn't have a way to add navbars to webpages because this blog didn't have one so the author didn't see the point? Or numerous similar issues?
If you want to exchange .txt files you can do that already with FTP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps if we fork the site …
There are already 1,800 forks: https://github.com/search?type=repositories&q=hackernews+clo... All we need is one fork that merges all of them into a single standard!
We need to fork the concept of forking.
We need to start knifing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already 1,800 forks: https://github.com/search?type=repositories&q=hackernews+clo... All we need is one fork that merges all of them into a single standard!
Maybe the problem is that we're forking things. We need to fork the concept of forking. We need to start knifing.
I suggest we start spooning the Web instead.
> The specification must contain a non-ambiguous formal grammar that can be parsed easily. A page can then be tested against the standard and reject or accept as compliant. Pages that don't conform with the specification won't be rendered. It is explicitly forbidden for clients to accept any page that doesn't conform with the specification. This is what XHTML was, and it was a complete disaster. There's a reason almo…
Author here. I agree that you cannot go from HTML to XHTML because users and UA devs will always go towards "it mostly works". However, I don't see it that clearly that this cannot be done since the start so that the expectations are right since the beginning. For example, I don't see the same problem in other formats like JPEG or PNG where you expect the image to work perfectly or fail with a decoding error. Other t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think original web standards were solving a completely different problem: sharing information . Modern Internet is 45% appearances and 50% search traffic optimizations. For better or worse we lost all usable registries of websites, we lost appearance-less and traffic considerations-less websites. Information-focused Web is pretty much dead. Maybe these ideas did not scale and did not monetize that well, but we will…
The current web supports flat information delivery, and it's there if you want it. Wikipedia can be presented in pure text. If you write a story or an essay you can post it in many places, including your own web site. Perhaps what's needed is for an alternative search engine. Assert that you will only index a site that meets some strict set of limits. If that's what people want they will use that engine. If it's popu…