4 ms·
Boo. Maybe it's over the top but for me the fact that something this awful made it into Google's official style guide tells me the nuts are really running the a
by ebbv 10y ago
Boo. Maybe it's over the top but for me the fact that something this awful made it into Google's official style guide tells me the nuts are really running the asylum over there. Was nobody in charge doing web development in the 90s or even the early 2000s? Has nobody there ever been put in charge of a legacy site that was written this way? There's a reason we all agreed to stick to standards and make our HTML verbose in the mid-2000s.
- rimantas 10y agoThis is and pretty much always was a part of HTML standards.
- detaro 10y agoWhat they recommend conforms to standards and should parse identically in all HTML5 parsers.
- ebbv 10y agoOh my god talk about nitpicking. Yes I realize it's allowed, it's still sloppy and gross. Technically I could put all my HTML into base64 encoded strings in javascript and then write them to the document, that doesn't mean that I should.
- detaro 10y agoSorry, I seem to have misinterpreted the background of your initial comment (less human aspect, more browser parsing issues). It's certainly something you should either do automatically or in a consistent style, not as an excuse to leave out random things if you feel like it.
- anjbe 10y ago> There's a reason we all agreed to stick to standards and make our HTML verbose in the mid-2000s. I think the failure of XHTML shows that this was in fact not universally agreed. Seriously, when’s the last time you saw a page served as application/xhtml+xml?