Nice, I expected something based on XPath (like xpd), but web developers dealing with HTML are infinitely more familiar with CSS selectors, so a great choice!
Htmlq: like jq, but for html
91–100 of 172 posts
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#92Nice, I expected something based on XPath (like xpd), but web developers dealing with HTML are infinitely more familiar with CSS selectors, so a great choice!
I want the option to use both, like Nokogiri gives you.
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#93"htmlq: like jq, but for HTML" "jq is like sed for JSON data" sed: "While in some ways similar to an editor which permits scripted edits (_such as ed_), sed works by making only one pass over the input(s)" ed: "ed is a line-oriented text editor". Software definition through a reference to another software is somewhat confusing. Potential users come from different backgrounds (I had no idea what is jq), and it is not…
"htmlq is like jq but for html" is a very specific 'dog whistle' for people who use jq. I agree that people who don't know what jq is will get no value and pay no attention. But for people who use jq, the claim is, like a dog whistle, clear, concise, and means exactly what it says. In two seconds, everyone using both jq and html will instantly know what is available and log it away.
So for general purposes, it's a terrible marketing pitch. And yet I think it's a very, very valuable demonstration of knowing some of their 'customers'.
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#94Good work!
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#95Just being that guy: is there a reason you didn't call it hq?
Not author but neither is the poster: Jq got away with it because it's one of the few 2 letter combinations that wasn't absolutely overloaded and "jquery" was already taken. OTOH nobody shortens HTML to H and HQ is an extremely common acronym, if not one of the most popular 2 letter acronyms you could pick.
jq didn't get away with it! Have you never tried searching for anything to do with it? How I wish it were called `jsonq`!
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#96Just being that guy: is there a reason you didn't call it hq?
I just wanted to be slightly more descriptive and less likely to collide with other tools.
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's this thing called a "computer" that people keep going on about, anyway?
It's like a programmable loom, but for logical and mathematical operations.
You may be interested in the symbol grounding problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem#Groun...). It's like the binding problem, but for symbols.
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#98"htmlq: like jq, but for HTML" "jq is like sed for JSON data" sed: "While in some ways similar to an editor which permits scripted edits (_such as ed_), sed works by making only one pass over the input(s)" ed: "ed is a line-oriented text editor". Software definition through a reference to another software is somewhat confusing. Potential users come from different backgrounds (I had no idea what is jq), and it is not…
What's this thing called a "computer" that people keep going on about, anyway?
It's a person who does mathematic calculations all day. For example, creating range tables for artillery, calculating averages or totals of a large range of values, or solving complex integrals or differential equations, and so on. They're commonly used in industry or government, especially in astronomy, aerospace and civil engineering for both simulation and analysis. Perhaps the most well-known computers were the Harvard Computers, which operated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
As a job, computers were largely automated out of existence by solid-state transistor based automated computers and integrated circuit transistor automated computers in the 60s, 70s and 80s, which replaced the enormously expensive and often largely experimental electro-mechanical automated computers while radically reducing cost and improving performance both by several orders of magnitude.
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like a programmable loom, but for logical and mathematical operations.
You may be interested in the symbol grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem#Groun... ). It's like the binding problem, but for symbols.
[deleted]
Re: Htmlq: like jq, but for html
#100This looks very useful, big fan of all the ^[a-z]+q$ utilities out there. But as a user, I would probably want to use XPath[0] notation here. Maybe that is just me. A quick search revealed xidel[1] which seems to be similar, but supports XPath. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPath [1] https://github.com/benibela/xidel
part of the problem with this is that HTML is mostly not valid XML