That's a very fair point, I guess I skipped over that part, my bad. My core issue was around this and I should have sticked to it : > The original purpose of

That's a very fair point, I guess I skipped over that part, my bad. My core issue was around this and I should have sticked to it : > The original purpose of the Web was to be a set of protocols and formats used for the purpose of publishing documents. I still think this is a bad argument, I disagree that HTML was conceived as a way to make "documents", but it shouldn't matter, things evolve on their own and people may use your creation in ways you disagree with. > The problem is, if the core content is actually a document, but behaves like an app (and you cannot access simple text because you disabled JS). I 100% agree with you, but the distinction is the "core content" part. Part of the page is that core content, and what we actually want to see/read indeed (and why various web browser brought a "reader mode" that extracts that part). But the page itself is not a document that only contains this core content, and hasn't been for a couple of decades. Most blogs/publication, even personal ones have been backed by a publishing system with the core content in a database. At this point these are applications, and many of these system can still output "pages" that 100% fit the description of being easily readable without JS, while still adding a lot of utility. Hence my disagreement around the "Documents ≠ Programs". That's the distinction I was trying to make.