4 ms·
It would also be the correct technology for most sites - you don't need fancy Javascript for just the contents. Navigation, ads, etc., maybe, but not the conte
by dirkt 6y ago
It would also be the correct technology for most sites - you don't need fancy Javascript for just the contents.
Navigation, ads, etc., maybe, but not the contents itself. Most webpages could be perfectly useful with Javascript completely disabled.
Sadly, many aren't.
- tantalor 6y agoFancy JavaScript has nothing to do with serving static content. JavaScript itself is (or should be) static content anyway. If you're talking about using JS to load content on page load, for whatever reason, that async content can also be static. For example some sites use the URL fragment (hash parameter) to load content, but the server does not receive this: The fragment identifier functions differently to the rest of the URI: its processing is exclusively client-sided with no participation from the web server - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment
- dirkt 6y ago> Fancy JavaScript has nothing to do with serving static content Still, I visit websites all the time that don't work with Javascript disabled. They don't work at all, or the images don't load, or the formatting breaks down. None of this is necessary. In principle, static content should work fine with Javascript disabled.