JS is a lot more fragile than HTML. It won't be difficult to extract useful information from a static HTML document 25 years from now, even if it doesn't rende

JS is a lot more fragile than HTML. It won't be difficult to extract useful information from a static HTML document 25 years from now, even if it doesn't render correctly. Actually, we do that already with static HTML documents written 20-25 years ago. But there's no guarantee that a script with lots of moving parts written today will run without errors on a future browser, especially if it stopped being maintained sometime in the middle. Why do we need so many moving parts to display a goddamn blog post? It's a mostly static document, after all. There's no reason it shouldn't be readable with NoScript on, or even in a terminal-based browser like lynx, with a very small number of HTTP requests. The reality is that only some parts of the modern web depends on JS. Hiring five people to change a lightbulb is not "moving forward", it's just wasteful.