5 ms·

I recall it was almost axiomatic that the more expensive the content management system, the worse the URLs it produced. I completely believe in the spirit of T

I recall it was almost axiomatic that the more expensive the content management system, the worse the URLs it produced. I completely believe in the spirit of TBL's statement, and wish the internet had evolved to followed some of the ideals implicit there in. I recall that people took some pride in the formatting of their HTML so that "view source" showed a definite structure as if the creator was crafting something. Now for the most part, URLs are often opaque and "view source" shows nothing but a bunch of links to impenetrable java script. I actually wonder when "view source" is going to be removed from the standard right-click window as it barely has meaning to the average user any more.

londons_explore 5y ago
Perhaps 'view source' should link to the authors github, highlighting the repo that can be built to produce the page. If the repo can't reproduce the contents of the page, simply treat that as an error and don't render the page.
- pc86 5y ago
  Yes because all code is available via GitHub.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    (or other code repo)
    - jefftk 5y ago
      If you actually want to do this, you could have the browser check for source maps, and refuse to render any pages that did not provide them: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Debugger/How_to/Use_a_source_map https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Debugger/How_... (Of course most pages are not willing to make their raw source available, so you would see a lot of errors.)
      - cxr 5y ago
        ... and a "go fuck yourself" to anybody who publishes pages that simply don't require source maps to begin with? I admit that would at least be in line with the current trend of prioritizing/encouraging the kinds of authors and publishers who engage in (the mess of) what is considered "good" modern Web development.
        jefftk 5y ago
        I mean, I think the whole idea of only showing websites with unminified source available is silly, but I'm willing to think about the idea ;) I think a source map is a better approach than a GitHub link, is was all I was saying! It also probably wouldn't be too hard to make some heuristics to figure out whether scripts are unminified and not require a source map. It wouldn't be 100% accurate, and it wouldn't avoid some form of intentional obfuscation that still uses long names for things, but it would probably work pretty well.
        cxr 5y ago
        Refer to <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/> (caveat: very broken and currently under-resourced; see <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-librejs https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-librejs>). > a source map is a better approach than a GitHub link def.
    - spicybright 5y ago
      Barely any commercial sites have public repos though. I'd even say barely any sites in general outside of dev blogs + projects. And even then they always link to the repo.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  I do this with http://chriswarbo.net http://chriswarbo.net Most HTML pages are generated from a corresponding Markdown file, in which case a "View Source" link is placed in the footer which goes to that Markdown file in git.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
View source doesn't show anything that cURL doesn't, and browser inspectors are far more useful. Still, I would hate to see view source disappear.
- nsomaru 5y ago
  Inspector has more features, but for me view source with CTRL-F is more performant
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Except in Microsoft Edge, where it hangs.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Inspector shows what the browser is currently rendering. View source might match that, or it might be something subtly (or not so subtly) different.
pjmlp 5y ago
I expect to eventually browsers be split into users and developer editions, with the tooling only available on developer edition. Actually I am quite surprised that it hasn't happened yet.
- turdnagel 5y ago
  Why?
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Because it has been a common trend in computing to split consumer and development devices.
    - jraph 5y ago
      For browsers, the opposite has been true. Developer tools that you once installed as extensions (hello Firebug) are now shipped in the browser.
      - cxr 5y ago
        Firefox's current devtools shipped beginning with Firefox 4. It was only Firefox 3.x that shipped without any kind of tooling for web developers. Prior to Firefox 3, the original DOM Inspector was built-in by default (just like the case with Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey).
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        I know, just expect it to turn full circle.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    Yeah, seems a bit pointless to split builds for no reason. You always want to test on the browser users will ultimately use anyways, even if you have guarantees the code works exactly the same for dev and user editions.
- scottlamb 5y ago
dheera 5y ago
The DOM view on the other hand is super useful as it is effectively a de-obfuscated version of what those javascript soup create. And you can remove things like popups instead of agreeing to them.

londons_explore 5y ago

Perhaps 'view source' should link to the authors github, highlighting the repo that can be built to produce the page. If the repo can't reproduce the contents of the page, simply treat that as an error and don't render the page.

pc86 5y ago
Yes because all code is available via GitHub.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  (or other code repo)
  - jefftk 5y ago
    If you actually want to do this, you could have the browser check for source maps, and refuse to render any pages that did not provide them: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Debugger/How_to/Use_a_source_map https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Debugger/How_... (Of course most pages are not willing to make their raw source available, so you would see a lot of errors.)
    - cxr 5y ago
      ... and a "go fuck yourself" to anybody who publishes pages that simply don't require source maps to begin with? I admit that would at least be in line with the current trend of prioritizing/encouraging the kinds of authors and publishers who engage in (the mess of) what is considered "good" modern Web development.
      - jefftk 5y ago
        I mean, I think the whole idea of only showing websites with unminified source available is silly, but I'm willing to think about the idea ;) I think a source map is a better approach than a GitHub link, is was all I was saying! It also probably wouldn't be too hard to make some heuristics to figure out whether scripts are unminified and not require a source map. It wouldn't be 100% accurate, and it wouldn't avoid some form of intentional obfuscation that still uses long names for things, but it would probably work pretty well.
        cxr 5y ago
        Refer to <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/> (caveat: very broken and currently under-resourced; see <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-librejs https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-librejs>). > a source map is a better approach than a GitHub link def.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    Barely any commercial sites have public repos though. I'd even say barely any sites in general outside of dev blogs + projects. And even then they always link to the repo.
chriswarbo 5y ago
I do this with http://chriswarbo.net http://chriswarbo.net Most HTML pages are generated from a corresponding Markdown file, in which case a "View Source" link is placed in the footer which goes to that Markdown file in git.

theandrewbailey 5y ago

View source doesn't show anything that cURL doesn't, and browser inspectors are far more useful. Still, I would hate to see view source disappear.

nsomaru 5y ago
Inspector has more features, but for me view source with CTRL-F is more performant
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Except in Microsoft Edge, where it hangs.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Inspector shows what the browser is currently rendering. View source might match that, or it might be something subtly (or not so subtly) different.

pjmlp 5y ago

I expect to eventually browsers be split into users and developer editions, with the tooling only available on developer edition. Actually I am quite surprised that it hasn't happened yet.

turdnagel 5y ago
Why?
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Because it has been a common trend in computing to split consumer and development devices.
  - jraph 5y ago
    For browsers, the opposite has been true. Developer tools that you once installed as extensions (hello Firebug) are now shipped in the browser.
    - cxr 5y ago
      Firefox's current devtools shipped beginning with Firefox 4. It was only Firefox 3.x that shipped without any kind of tooling for web developers. Prior to Firefox 3, the original DOM Inspector was built-in by default (just like the case with Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey).
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      I know, just expect it to turn full circle.
- spicybright 5y ago
  Yeah, seems a bit pointless to split builds for no reason. You always want to test on the browser users will ultimately use anyways, even if you have guarantees the code works exactly the same for dev and user editions.
scottlamb 5y ago

dheera 5y ago

The DOM view on the other hand is super useful as it is effectively a de-obfuscated version of what those javascript soup create. And you can remove things like popups instead of agreeing to them.