4 ms·

I firmly believe truly plain HTML (sans even CSS) would be used more if browsers didn't seem to go out of their ways to make default pages ugly. Every element,

I firmly believe truly plain HTML (sans even CSS) would be used more if browsers didn't seem to go out of their ways to make default pages ugly. Every element, down to H6, should be legible by default (even without the proprietary-turned-CSS viewport meta tag). Sure, nothing is guaranteed about style, but that doesn't mean, for instance, that tables can't be styled by default and must instead look like a collection of lost strings on the screen. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised by the bold implementations of DETAILS and SUMMARY, but still, there seems to be some sort of unspoken industry-wide manifesto against this.

sergeykish 6y ago
I imagine change in user.css would break existing pages. Individual user can make such decision but browser care about those who don't. Have you updated yours? It should start somewhere...
- ezequiel-garzon 6y ago
  I don’t see how making text legible and adding some style to tables would break existing unstyled pages. With regard to your second point, I’m not talking about user style sheets, but about the prospect of writing unstyled HTML. If I ever get to post anything on my personal website I will walk the walk and use plain HTML, yes, but I doubt this will have any meaningful impact!
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    It would make them look different, maybe conflicting with other applied styles. Browsers still supports quirks mode. It is only possible to change defaults if no content exists - XHTML has no quirks mode. I'm trying to explore this direction, http://sergeykish.com/live-pages http://sergeykish.com/live-pages - just a few rules. Publish it, this page is from 2015, finally published. I believe the main obstacle is authoring and I want to resolve it. Write in markdown, run generator, apply themes, explore in devtools, host it - too much hassle, too professional. We can write right on the page. PUT that page on server as it is. GET it back. Sync with static storage. Write own tools. That's simplicity, it is empowering.
    - ezequiel-garzon 6y ago
      Hey, thanks for your replies, and interesting project! Correct me if I'm wrong, but quirks mode applies when the doctype declaration is missing, right? I'm talking about modern, validated HTML documents that have no CSS. And I'm sorry to repeat myself if you go over my comment history, but the whole thing about having to specify all of a sudden in a proprietary tag that I suggest to use the device(-)width as the width... well, is my ultimate pet peeve. Again, I'm talking about valid documents that make no use of CSS at all, and that failing to include that render the text font microscopically. That would be my suggested point of departure for the improvements, and generally speaking I feel the overall default aesthetics could be improved without breaking anything. Here is a relevant example. The very first website ever made [1] renders like this [2] without a viewport meta style on a current iPhone, but like [3] when you include this tag which made its debut decades later. Again, I believe way more could safely be done from the browser side, but this would be a sane start. Edit: I realize I'm giving the oldest possible example, which necessarily triggers quirks mode, but the same can be said of any modern, proper HTML document without CSS. [1] http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html [2] https://imgur.com/gallery/0THBhQ9 https://imgur.com/gallery/0THBhQ9 [3] https://imgur.com/gallery/HQkxXFF https://imgur.com/gallery/HQkxXFF
      - sergeykish 6y ago
        Thank you. Ah, so you grudge is <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">, sorry, I was confused by default awful table style. That is much harder, there was no simple answer [1], browsers displayed viewport, some (Opera Mobile or Mini) had text reflow option. One company decided that it is authors responsibility [2], others followed. And now it is bad default. So what can we do? Improve own experience – vote with your feet, inject setting in extension, patch and compile open source browser – plenty of options, and write about it. From my experience – Linux, uMatrix, Stylus, patch Firefox, have to write now (I'll edit later). That's why why meant by "have you updated yours (user.css)?". If anything we need more choice. Build your own browser -Ungoogled, Iridium, Tor browser, Beaker Browser. Hack on smaller codebase - Netsurf, Dillo. There are graphical DOS browsers, console browsers, BeOS browser, Plan 9 browser, Emacs browser. I mentioned quirks mode (correct, without doctype) to show how insignificant details with almost no presence still guarded by browsers. That page was written before pixel perfect reproduction was a thing. There are a lot of pages from another era https://theoldnet.com/ https://theoldnet.com/ [1] https://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/viewports2.html https://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/viewports2.html [2] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/UsingtheViewport/UsingtheViewport.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ap...

sergeykish 6y ago

I imagine change in user.css would break existing pages. Individual user can make such decision but browser care about those who don't. Have you updated yours? It should start somewhere...

ezequiel-garzon 6y ago
I don’t see how making text legible and adding some style to tables would break existing unstyled pages. With regard to your second point, I’m not talking about user style sheets, but about the prospect of writing unstyled HTML. If I ever get to post anything on my personal website I will walk the walk and use plain HTML, yes, but I doubt this will have any meaningful impact!
- sergeykish 6y ago
  It would make them look different, maybe conflicting with other applied styles. Browsers still supports quirks mode. It is only possible to change defaults if no content exists - XHTML has no quirks mode. I'm trying to explore this direction, http://sergeykish.com/live-pages http://sergeykish.com/live-pages - just a few rules. Publish it, this page is from 2015, finally published. I believe the main obstacle is authoring and I want to resolve it. Write in markdown, run generator, apply themes, explore in devtools, host it - too much hassle, too professional. We can write right on the page. PUT that page on server as it is. GET it back. Sync with static storage. Write own tools. That's simplicity, it is empowering.
  - ezequiel-garzon 6y ago
    Hey, thanks for your replies, and interesting project! Correct me if I'm wrong, but quirks mode applies when the doctype declaration is missing, right? I'm talking about modern, validated HTML documents that have no CSS. And I'm sorry to repeat myself if you go over my comment history, but the whole thing about having to specify all of a sudden in a proprietary tag that I suggest to use the device(-)width as the width... well, is my ultimate pet peeve. Again, I'm talking about valid documents that make no use of CSS at all, and that failing to include that render the text font microscopically. That would be my suggested point of departure for the improvements, and generally speaking I feel the overall default aesthetics could be improved without breaking anything. Here is a relevant example. The very first website ever made [1] renders like this [2] without a viewport meta style on a current iPhone, but like [3] when you include this tag which made its debut decades later. Again, I believe way more could safely be done from the browser side, but this would be a sane start. Edit: I realize I'm giving the oldest possible example, which necessarily triggers quirks mode, but the same can be said of any modern, proper HTML document without CSS. [1] http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html [2] https://imgur.com/gallery/0THBhQ9 https://imgur.com/gallery/0THBhQ9 [3] https://imgur.com/gallery/HQkxXFF https://imgur.com/gallery/HQkxXFF
    - sergeykish 6y ago
      Thank you. Ah, so you grudge is <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">, sorry, I was confused by default awful table style. That is much harder, there was no simple answer [1], browsers displayed viewport, some (Opera Mobile or Mini) had text reflow option. One company decided that it is authors responsibility [2], others followed. And now it is bad default. So what can we do? Improve own experience – vote with your feet, inject setting in extension, patch and compile open source browser – plenty of options, and write about it. From my experience – Linux, uMatrix, Stylus, patch Firefox, have to write now (I'll edit later). That's why why meant by "have you updated yours (user.css)?". If anything we need more choice. Build your own browser -Ungoogled, Iridium, Tor browser, Beaker Browser. Hack on smaller codebase - Netsurf, Dillo. There are graphical DOS browsers, console browsers, BeOS browser, Plan 9 browser, Emacs browser. I mentioned quirks mode (correct, without doctype) to show how insignificant details with almost no presence still guarded by browsers. That page was written before pixel perfect reproduction was a thing. There are a lot of pages from another era https://theoldnet.com/ https://theoldnet.com/ [1] https://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/viewports2.html https://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/viewports2.html [2] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/UsingtheViewport/UsingtheViewport.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ap...