4 ms·

Completely off-topic, but I discovered the existence of the <details> HTML tag [1] with this page. I was surprised that I could unfold these questions at all w

by jraph 7y ago

Completely off-topic, but I discovered the existence of the <details> HTML tag [1] with this page. I was surprised that I could unfold these questions at all with Javascript disabled. Usually, I am stuck with this kind of pages. Please webmasters, use <details> for your FAQs if you want foldable questions. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/details https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/de...

tomcooks 7y ago
Unsupported by the usual suspects, that's why.
- jraph 7y ago
  They are disappearing and it gracefully degrades, I think we should not care in most cases now :-) edit: and I guess a JS shim can be used if it really matters.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Edge never really gained popularity so that disappearing (with Chrome-Edge) is neither here nor there. IE11 is here to stay until at least 2025. In no small part due to Microsoft's decision to make IE11's rendering engine the only browser that could support: Java Applets, Flash, ActiveX, that almost all major companies and large governments use. If they had incorporated those into Edge and hidden them behind ten layers of security warnings, we wouldn't be in this mess. Try to service large corporations and governments. Our IE11 user share is over 70% for the product (but under 30% for the marketing/public pages). This won't change until every last Java Applet/Flash/ActiveX control dies, and that isn't happening fast -- companies literally in 2019 still sell products using the tech' (Oracle!).
    - jraph 7y ago
      > Try to service large corporations and governments. Our IE11 user share is over 70% for the product I was excluding this from the "most cases", but thanks for the wake up call anyway. Outch.
- netfl0 7y ago
  You beat me to it :) Yes this is too bad. Great feature.
- rgoulter 7y ago
  Convenience link (obviously implied: IE, Edge don't support it): https://caniuse.com/#feat=details https://caniuse.com/#feat=details
grenoire 7y ago
The issue is that the compatibility and styling (animations etc.) are not fully supported or available. This should have been standardised much earlier, alas here we are with a half-assed solution to a very common pattern.
- jraph 7y ago
  I guess you can always hack something in Javascript if you wish to have animations, which is always better than to go with an implementation in full Javascript.
  - grenoire 7y ago
    The one thing that does not stop boggling my mind on a daily basis is the lack of a consistent feature detection and the subsequent fallback mechanism for the web. I need to look at all these weird angles and use polyfills just to check if the feature is there in the first place. Even then, I cannot accomplish this without JS, and cannot react to it without JS. It's not a choice I have, so fuck it: I'll make it viewable without JS, and usable with JS.
    - jraph 7y ago
      You can always detect whether tag <foo> is supported in JavaScript by testing whether HTLMFooElement is defined (but I understand you are speaking more generally). I understand your feeling, and by making it usable without JavaScript you are already going a long way, but using those tags also makes your pages accessible. Making your pages beautiful with animations is only extra. Things already work out of the box in any case without <details> without effort, only better if it is supported. HTML is mostly designed to gracefully degrade, detection is not always necessary. How would you like things to be handled? Handling retro compatibility is hard and I find HTML does a good job at it.
      - grenoire 7y ago
        Out of a stance that is now more political than anything, the applications I've been building are entirely operating with server-side HTML templates with absolutely minimum to no JS (only for the occasional page load event or whatnot). When you respond to requests in under 100ms (plus network latency), you don't need an SPA layer to fool people into thinking that they're not in a web page. Bosses are particularly impressed with the speed.
fenwick67 7y ago
Woah, I was using the checkbox CSS hack to do exactly this, I had no idea there was an actual element for this.
lelf 7y ago
<details> are quite handy for github comments. (Yes, they work!)

by jraph 7y ago

tomcooks 7y ago

Unsupported by the usual suspects, that's why.

jraph 7y ago
They are disappearing and it gracefully degrades, I think we should not care in most cases now :-) edit: and I guess a JS shim can be used if it really matters.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Edge never really gained popularity so that disappearing (with Chrome-Edge) is neither here nor there. IE11 is here to stay until at least 2025. In no small part due to Microsoft's decision to make IE11's rendering engine the only browser that could support: Java Applets, Flash, ActiveX, that almost all major companies and large governments use. If they had incorporated those into Edge and hidden them behind ten layers of security warnings, we wouldn't be in this mess. Try to service large corporations and governments. Our IE11 user share is over 70% for the product (but under 30% for the marketing/public pages). This won't change until every last Java Applet/Flash/ActiveX control dies, and that isn't happening fast -- companies literally in 2019 still sell products using the tech' (Oracle!).
  - jraph 7y ago
    > Try to service large corporations and governments. Our IE11 user share is over 70% for the product I was excluding this from the "most cases", but thanks for the wake up call anyway. Outch.
netfl0 7y ago
You beat me to it :) Yes this is too bad. Great feature.
rgoulter 7y ago
Convenience link (obviously implied: IE, Edge don't support it): https://caniuse.com/#feat=details https://caniuse.com/#feat=details

grenoire 7y ago

The issue is that the compatibility and styling (animations etc.) are not fully supported or available. This should have been standardised much earlier, alas here we are with a half-assed solution to a very common pattern.

jraph 7y ago
I guess you can always hack something in Javascript if you wish to have animations, which is always better than to go with an implementation in full Javascript.
- grenoire 7y ago
  The one thing that does not stop boggling my mind on a daily basis is the lack of a consistent feature detection and the subsequent fallback mechanism for the web. I need to look at all these weird angles and use polyfills just to check if the feature is there in the first place. Even then, I cannot accomplish this without JS, and cannot react to it without JS. It's not a choice I have, so fuck it: I'll make it viewable without JS, and usable with JS.
  - jraph 7y ago
    You can always detect whether tag <foo> is supported in JavaScript by testing whether HTLMFooElement is defined (but I understand you are speaking more generally). I understand your feeling, and by making it usable without JavaScript you are already going a long way, but using those tags also makes your pages accessible. Making your pages beautiful with animations is only extra. Things already work out of the box in any case without <details> without effort, only better if it is supported. HTML is mostly designed to gracefully degrade, detection is not always necessary. How would you like things to be handled? Handling retro compatibility is hard and I find HTML does a good job at it.
    - grenoire 7y ago
      Out of a stance that is now more political than anything, the applications I've been building are entirely operating with server-side HTML templates with absolutely minimum to no JS (only for the occasional page load event or whatnot). When you respond to requests in under 100ms (plus network latency), you don't need an SPA layer to fool people into thinking that they're not in a web page. Bosses are particularly impressed with the speed.

fenwick67 7y ago

Woah, I was using the checkbox CSS hack to do exactly this, I had no idea there was an actual element for this.

lelf 7y ago

<details> are quite handy for github comments. (Yes, they work!)