4 ms·

> People don't actually know or care about the semantics of their pages. Designers want pixel-perfect layouts because they care much more about what their page

> People don't actually know or care about the semantics of their pages. Designers want pixel-perfect layouts because they care much more about what their page looks like than what it says, and non-designers had to use the same techniques as designers because browsers were asleep at the wheel in how they handled unstyled pages. When showing what possibilities there are, they are used no matter by whom. For instance when I showed what is possible with inline svg in React everybody in the team bought into that eventually. Also designers are (in contrast to artists) all about creating things considering a lot of constraints. Most web designers know at least basic html so it's possible to design for and therefore work with reusable markups To me XHTML failed because it was really painful to use (and still is). You forget one closing tag and everything fails. The amount of people using IDEs (or even XML editors) are still in the minority. On the other hand React proves that XML (JSX) can be used in a modern way. That's probably mostly due to the fact that it's not used in one big blob but modularized into more digestible pieces and the barrier to write custom functionality is really low

nullifidian 6y ago
>You forget one closing tag and everything fails. That's not really a problem with augmented editors and software testing frameworks. It even "lints" your code/html -- documents must be well formed.
lmm 6y ago
> When showing what possibilities there are, they are used no matter by whom. For instance when I showed what is possible with inline svg in React everybody in the team bought into that eventually. Also designers are (in contrast to artists) all about creating things considering a lot of constraints. If you show someone a tool that they can use to make something look like x, they'll use it. But what they won't do is restrict themselves to things that look right under all your different XSLT/CSS transformations, unless you make that very easy to test for, and probably not even then. Designers do work within constraints, but like anyone, if they find a cool new technique for doing part of their job better, they're going to want to use it, and not worry too much about some abstract concern of whether it's "semantic". > To me XHTML failed because it was really painful to use (and still is). You forget one closing tag and everything fails. The amount of people using IDEs (or even XML editors) are still in the minority. On the other hand React proves that XML (JSX) can be used in a modern way. That's probably mostly due to the fact that it's not used in one big blob but modularized into more digestible pieces and the barrier to write custom functionality is really low One missing character can make everything fail in JavaScript too, so the reason React/JSX succeeds isn't that it has a looser syntax. I agree that it's because it's easier to use, but IMO that's mainly because JavaScript is a much more expressive language than XSLT - seriously, XSLT is the worst language I've ever seen anyone produce by hand. Page-global CSS is an indimidating mess as well though, agreed - we need reusable modular components that know how to style themselves, expecting to be able to style something from the outside by fiddling with its internals is a recipe for unmaintainability.

nullifidian 6y ago

>You forget one closing tag and everything fails. That's not really a problem with augmented editors and software testing frameworks. It even "lints" your code/html -- documents must be well formed.

lmm 6y ago

> When showing what possibilities there are, they are used no matter by whom. For instance when I showed what is possible with inline svg in React everybody in the team bought into that eventually. Also designers are (in contrast to artists) all about creating things considering a lot of constraints. If you show someone a tool that they can use to make something look like x, they'll use it. But what they won't do is restrict themselves to things that look right under all your different XSLT/CSS transformations, unless you make that very easy to test for, and probably not even then. Designers do work within constraints, but like anyone, if they find a cool new technique for doing part of their job better, they're going to want to use it, and not worry too much about some abstract concern of whether it's "semantic". > To me XHTML failed because it was really painful to use (and still is). You forget one closing tag and everything fails. The amount of people using IDEs (or even XML editors) are still in the minority. On the other hand React proves that XML (JSX) can be used in a modern way. That's probably mostly due to the fact that it's not used in one big blob but modularized into more digestible pieces and the barrier to write custom functionality is really low One missing character can make everything fail in JavaScript too, so the reason React/JSX succeeds isn't that it has a looser syntax. I agree that it's because it's easier to use, but IMO that's mainly because JavaScript is a much more expressive language than XSLT - seriously, XSLT is the worst language I've ever seen anyone produce by hand. Page-global CSS is an indimidating mess as well though, agreed - we need reusable modular components that know how to style themselves, expecting to be able to style something from the outside by fiddling with its internals is a recipe for unmaintainability.