5 ms·
In what sense? Because the article is explaining some problem, and the article itself has some other unrelated problem?
by baddox 7y ago
In what sense? Because the article is explaining some problem, and the article itself has some other unrelated problem?
- mywittyname 7y ago> Here is my plea: when you build hardware/software, please make it support the primitive, simple case. The OP is arguing that the primitive, simple case for this page is to not use any javascript because it's unnecessary for the core functionality of this page. The content here can be displayed simply as a few kilobytes of raw HTML. Much like the author assumed that javascript is most primitive & simple functionality for internet users, the people who built his TV, assumed that chromecast protocol is the most primitive & simple way to send a video link to the TV.
- anderspitman 7y agoIt's a valid point, I edited my comment to concede it.
- dredmorbius 7y agoThe article entirely fails to render in Chrome, with JS disabled. It entirely fails to render in text-mode browsers (I actually make heavy use of w3m). It entirely fails to render in https://outline.com/ https://outline.com/, which otherwise is a good way to get fucked-up JS-dependent sites to render. I consider that stage of fuckwittedness either absolutely deliberate (which it appears to be in this case based on the authors defence of their practices), or utter incompetence. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities. The fact that the article is apparently (I've still been unable to read it) a plea for base-level compatibility is, as initially noted, arch irony.