91–100 of 137 posts
How long ago were the default CSS rules set for a browser. They should probably change.
Here's how you write a blog with raw HTML:
1. Write some HTML to a file. (No loading third-party JavaScript.)
2. Host that file.
That's it, that's the whole thing.
"raw html" that does not work without JS (I mean literally, links are not links without JS), but on the other hand looks ugly even if 10 lines of CSS would make it look nice
I don't know what I'm more offended by, the implication that writing 'raw' HTML is some noteworthy retro skill, or the fact the blog isn't actually written in raw HTML at all, but in Markdown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used wintersmith.io. At some point it was abandoned and eventually the node version needed was old and other stuff associated with it. It became a hassle.
Writing raw html and wiring it yourself is a hassle, how is not upgrading node a bigger one? Besides there are SSGs that are a single binary
> the longest lived one is based on hugo Upgrading hugo is not straightforward due to the backward incompatibility changes. Too much changes to care for a static generator.
I used to blog with raw html. In 1999 when I was 12. It sucked. There is a reason why we use things like markdown now. Still, you kids should definitely dig into the fundamentals at least one time and write raw html. Just don't stay there and pretend it's somehow better for you.
I think OP is defining Raw HTML as an excuse to not bother with themes, style, or clever use of HTML. Just ignore the markdown and Javascript....
Im confused, blogging with raw html but also using highlight.js and markdown?
re: static, there are two main points of view. Static from the visitor's perspective or static from the webmaster's perspective. This seems to be about static from the webmaster's perspective which is a "modern" view and one that seems to have overloaded the term since 2015 or so.