4 ms·
> It's basically not possible, for example, to make a classic sites website mobile responsive. Huh? Did that 10 years ago. Perhaps we have a different definiti
by dwheeler 6y ago
> It's basically not possible, for example, to make a classic sites website mobile responsive.
Huh? Did that 10 years ago. Perhaps we have a different definition of a "classic site".
To me a "classic site" is another name for a static site, that is, a website where the HTML to be served is pregenerated. Static sites are now coming back, not going away. But I always assumed that a website should reflow.
Perhaps when you say "classic site" you mean "site that assumes that all users have the same display size". I agree that such classic sites are nonsense today. But they were always nonsense. At no time was there a guarantee of any particular screen size for HTML, and it's always been easy to write HTML that just reflows. If you do that, your site works just fine.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Perhaps we have a different definition of a "classic site". GP didn't say “classic site” they said “classic sites website”. You seem to be interpreting that as intended to be a somewhat redundant and mispunctuated rendering of “classic site’s website”, but given that the context is a discussion for the shutdown of Google’s classic Sites in favor of only supporting Google’s new Sites mode, I think that it's just a capitalization-omitted rendering of “classic Sites website”, that is, a website using classic Google Sites as opposed to new Google Sites.