4 ms·
There is a need for plain HTML. HTML is robust, can render incrementally, and can stand on its own. Javascript sucks. It's a subtle minefield of a language, ta
by timw4mail 6y ago
There is a need for plain HTML. HTML is robust, can render incrementally, and can stand on its own.
Javascript sucks. It's a subtle minefield of a language, takes more time to parse than HTML or CSS, and is by far the most brittle part of the website. Websites rendered only through Javascript are trash.
- ROARosen 6y agoWhatever your dislike-level to JS is, we cannot dispute the fact that JS, or at least JSON can do pretty much everything HTML can do, but not the other way around. Of course our beloved HTML can still exist, just as PDF exists. But in my opinion it shouldn't be the required standard. Since I can markup just as easily in JSON And like it or not JS is one the the core web components today, we can make JS the standard (we can keep it safe by allowing defining a safe subset of JS - e.g. JSON - which would work with general scripts disabled), with support for plain ol' HTML. Point is, JSON can replace HTML, while preserving everything you like about HTML but not vice versa.
- timw4mail 6y agoThe JSON standard as is can not replace HTML because it has no room for error correction. Regardless of capability, one of the primary strengths of HTML is that it is forgiving at a syntax level. JS and JSON are not.