4 ms·
> When it comes to resilience, you just can’t beat static HTML. We don’t actually need HTML for every case. For even more resilience, we could just push text f
by newscracker 7y ago
> When it comes to resilience, you just can’t beat static HTML.
We don’t actually need HTML for every case. For even more resilience, we could just push text files with markdown-like formatting characters that people might understand to give the content some hierarchy and emphasis. This would be just content and content alone. Obviously, this wouldn’t be appropriate for all use cases, but if you’re just sharing updates, it could (depending on other factors) be a simpler solution to implement.
- giantrobot 7y agoModern browsers are really shitty text viewers, especially mobile browsers. They have unreliable scaling, line wrapping, and are generally piss poor at the task. An HTML document with zero CSS will be displayed far better in browsers. A couple CSS statements in a script tag can make that basic document easily readable and even good looking. With HTML you have the ability to link to other sites, documents, or anchors in those documents. This makes navigation much simpler than shittily displayed plain text. You're also less likely to have your document mangled by the browser like with plain text. Also remember just about anyone with a smartphone knows how to navigate the web (links, back buttons, etc). If you break those UI paradigms by sending them plain text documents you've made it harder for a good percentage of the population to effectively use that data.