4 ms·

I don’t understand your first point. As you state yourself, there’s already alternative formats for minimal websites. Current HTML can already do simple, conten

I don’t understand your first point. As you state yourself, there’s already alternative formats for minimal websites. Current HTML can already do simple, content-only documents. But developers aren’t using those approaches in significant numbers. The existence of these options is not enough to solve the problem otherwise it’d be considered solved. You still need to convince devs to create content for it, which goes back to the authors original point.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I'll rephrase what I think you're saying, as I think it's a valid point: Given that we already have the ability to make lightweight HTML-based web-pages, and we also already have a variety of lightweight alternative markup languages to choose from, what's the point of picking one particular subset of HTML and giving it a brand-name? The real goal should be to encourage web developers to make better, more lightweight websites, and/or to encourage use of lightweight alternative markup technologies (to better support very simple browser solutions). Again I think it's a fair point. Another related point: the Gemini project seems to be capable of automatic conversion to HTML. Any such project should make this ability a priority. If you then go ahead and use that, you get an HTML subset 'for free', as the generated HTML files will be lightweight and use few HTML features. We do this today with Markdown. HackerNews won't let me generate a <blink> tag, but we're allowed <i> tags.