4 ms·

> the web is about webs of interlinked documents If this is true, and my browser can follow a link to a Blogger page, displaying the intended document using un

> the web is about webs of interlinked documents If this is true, and my browser can follow a link to a Blogger page, displaying the intended document using universal browser features, then the Web is not broken. This kind of evangelism makes no sense. The whole idea that "the Web is about documents, specifically" was shattered as soon as Javascript was added over two decades ago. It's no longer about that idea and hasn't been for a long time. Interlinked resources, yes, and documents became a subset of that idea in 1995. The desire for document-type content to display without JS stems from a strange desire to see the technology used how it was invented in 1990. The Web was hodge-podge of technology then, and it's even more so now. If you intend to pick and choose what parts of the hodge-podge to use, you will find yourself frustrated forever. And you gain no advantage by arguing "but I want the _original_ hodge-podge to work with the type of content it was design for!". JS _is_ the Web just as much as HTML because all (Edit: popular) browsers support it. As soon as that happened, compatibility with the Original Hodge-Podge was dead, permanently. For better or worse, that is the reality.

detaro 10y ago
It also comes from a desire to use tools that are not browsers on the web. To archive, to search, to display them nicely when sharing them, ...
- mynameislegion 10y ago
  I agree. Before the prevalence of JS you could simply download the text. But now, much of the text interpreted. So if you wish to get all the text, you must also do the interpretation step. Which essentially means running a headless browser to pipe it to you. And it's simply not practical to tell your text sources to avoid using so much interpreted text. They're using Web standards.
zeveb 10y ago
> If this is true, and my browser can follow a link to a Blogger page, displaying the intended document using universal browser features, then the Web is not broken. Your second premise doesn't hold for all browsers: links cannot display Blogger pages; Firefox with NoScript cannot display Blogger pages; the Tor Browser with high security cannot display Blogger pages. The Web is, fundamentally, about resources — documents — and their state, not about behaviour. > JS _is_ the Web just as much as HTML because all browsers support it. No. They. Don't. eww doesn't. w3m doesn't. lynx doesn't. links doesn't. elinks doesn't. Firefox with NoScript doesn't. The Tor Browser with high security doesn't. That is the reality. The reality is also that allowing JavaScript exposes users to severe privacy and security threats. Disabling JavaScript is the only way to control those threats. Every site which requires JavaScript to function is like a serpent tempting a user into giving up his privacy and security. That is the reality.
- mynameislegion 10y ago
  > Firefox with NoScript cannot display Blogger pages; the Tor Browser with high security cannot display Blogger pages. These configurations disable universal features, so the premise holds. > The Web is, fundamentally, about resources — documents — and their state, not about behaviour. Yes, in 1990. Also, you choose to conflate "resources" with "documents". > w3m doesn't. lynx doesn't. links doesn't. elinks doesn't These are browsers that choose parts of the standard hodge-podge and they suffer for it by not being able to display all pages. _ I'm not arguing the situation is great or that you should like it. Hell, I don't even like it. Your criticisms of JS are valid. But your expectations of how the Web should work are _broken_ and they would have been broken 20 years ago. Whether it's 1996 or 2016, the only way your reality could come true is if there was an HTML-first programming style enforced universally. It's so impractical it's barely worth mentioning, so why evangelize?
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > These configurations disable universal features, so the premise holds. > These are browsers that choose parts of the standard hodge-podge and they suffer for it by not being able to display all pages. So, the Web is not broken because all browsers which use a feature are able to display pages which use a feature — anyone who disables that feature is responsible for breakage due to pages using it, and anyone using a browser which doesn't support that feature is responsible for choosing such a browser. Your logic would justify every vendor-lock-in attempt from Apple & Microsoft; it would support the idea that all the Internet's IE. > But your expectations of how the Web should work are _broken_ No they most definitely are not. My expectations of how the Web should work are based on mathematical truth. REST is symbolic manipulation: it's correct in the way that only math can be. > Whether it's 1996 or 2016, the only way your reality could come true is if there was an HTML-first programming style enforced universally. Not HTML-first, resource-first. Figure out what your resources are, figure out how they are related, figure out what behaviour makes sense, then wire it all together. Once you have all your resources (images, HTML, whatever) working well, then feel free to wire it up with JavaScript. HTML's power is that it is declarative, not imperative. It shares that character with plain text: when you read my words you do not give me root access to your brain. No-one should be forced to execute unknown, newly-served code in order to read a document. When you require JavaScript, you break the Web. Please don't.

detaro 10y ago

It also comes from a desire to use tools that are not browsers on the web. To archive, to search, to display them nicely when sharing them, ...

mynameislegion 10y ago
I agree. Before the prevalence of JS you could simply download the text. But now, much of the text interpreted. So if you wish to get all the text, you must also do the interpretation step. Which essentially means running a headless browser to pipe it to you. And it's simply not practical to tell your text sources to avoid using so much interpreted text. They're using Web standards.

zeveb 10y ago

> If this is true, and my browser can follow a link to a Blogger page, displaying the intended document using universal browser features, then the Web is not broken. Your second premise doesn't hold for all browsers: links cannot display Blogger pages; Firefox with NoScript cannot display Blogger pages; the Tor Browser with high security cannot display Blogger pages. The Web is, fundamentally, about resources — documents — and their state, not about behaviour. > JS _is_ the Web just as much as HTML because all browsers support it. No. They. Don't. eww doesn't. w3m doesn't. lynx doesn't. links doesn't. elinks doesn't. Firefox with NoScript doesn't. The Tor Browser with high security doesn't. That is the reality. The reality is also that allowing JavaScript exposes users to severe privacy and security threats. Disabling JavaScript is the only way to control those threats. Every site which requires JavaScript to function is like a serpent tempting a user into giving up his privacy and security. That is the reality.

mynameislegion 10y ago
> Firefox with NoScript cannot display Blogger pages; the Tor Browser with high security cannot display Blogger pages. These configurations disable universal features, so the premise holds. > The Web is, fundamentally, about resources — documents — and their state, not about behaviour. Yes, in 1990. Also, you choose to conflate "resources" with "documents". > w3m doesn't. lynx doesn't. links doesn't. elinks doesn't These are browsers that choose parts of the standard hodge-podge and they suffer for it by not being able to display all pages. _ I'm not arguing the situation is great or that you should like it. Hell, I don't even like it. Your criticisms of JS are valid. But your expectations of how the Web should work are _broken_ and they would have been broken 20 years ago. Whether it's 1996 or 2016, the only way your reality could come true is if there was an HTML-first programming style enforced universally. It's so impractical it's barely worth mentioning, so why evangelize?
- zeveb 10y ago
  > These configurations disable universal features, so the premise holds. > These are browsers that choose parts of the standard hodge-podge and they suffer for it by not being able to display all pages. So, the Web is not broken because all browsers which use a feature are able to display pages which use a feature — anyone who disables that feature is responsible for breakage due to pages using it, and anyone using a browser which doesn't support that feature is responsible for choosing such a browser. Your logic would justify every vendor-lock-in attempt from Apple & Microsoft; it would support the idea that all the Internet's IE. > But your expectations of how the Web should work are _broken_ No they most definitely are not. My expectations of how the Web should work are based on mathematical truth. REST is symbolic manipulation: it's correct in the way that only math can be. > Whether it's 1996 or 2016, the only way your reality could come true is if there was an HTML-first programming style enforced universally. Not HTML-first, resource-first. Figure out what your resources are, figure out how they are related, figure out what behaviour makes sense, then wire it all together. Once you have all your resources (images, HTML, whatever) working well, then feel free to wire it up with JavaScript. HTML's power is that it is declarative, not imperative. It shares that character with plain text: when you read my words you do not give me root access to your brain. No-one should be forced to execute unknown, newly-served code in order to read a document. When you require JavaScript, you break the Web. Please don't.