3 ms·

This is great. I just wish this clumsy wording was a bit tighter: > the whole website is contained within a single HTML file. Because, it's not. An HTML file,

• arghwhat 5y ago
  A CSS file is unnecessary, and you could skip the images or embed them.
  • k__ 5y ago
    The question is, what is the USP here? Having no JS or having everything in a single HTML file, and the title suggests the latter. Also, you can embed the JavaScript too.
• chrisjc 5y ago
  It's not, but with a little more imagination you could certainly take the author's work to the next level. Inline CSS and images as blobs. Then in practice the issue becomes a bloated file that isn't able to reuse internal components, at least not without introducing a layer of complexity such as a scripting language and browser APIs to go with it. Perhaps if HTML had been designed with more component re-usability in mind, the landscape of the internet would look very different today. Then again, what sense would there be in having a single HTML file for a site like Wikipedia or Altavista? And imagining the web evolving without a scripting language would be naive. Single file websites that could be served up on blob or network storage certainly appeal to me, especially today.
  • southerntofu 5y ago
    Sounds like content-addressing would address (pun intended) your needs. I mean it's quite possible to build a IPFS/Bittorrent/DAT-based browser. I'd be interested in such a modern p2p-friendly browser minus the gigantic JS crap and attack surface.
    • beckman466 5y ago
      > it's quite possible to build a IPFS/Bittorrent/DAT-based browser what would make it different from DAT's Beaker Browser?