5 ms·

This works for blog posts, where the body of the document is one long block of paragraphs, but I suspect this style would quickly become untenable for complex a

This works for blog posts, where the body of the document is one long block of paragraphs, but I suspect this style would quickly become untenable for complex apps. Indentation _is_ information, which is lost here.

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
That’s why HTML is not a language for ‘apps’.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Except for the fact that native apps also use SGML or XML inspired markup for their layout engines. A tree of heterogeneous objects maps extremely well to how people think about UI.
  - WillusFredus 4y ago
    I agree that a tree structure can work well for mapping UIs, but HTML does not. It was specifically design as a textual markup language. Its role has been expanded, but it has been done so poorly. What really needs to happen it a separation of HTML from UI markup elements. HTML will be used solely for textual markup and a new markup language can be used for UIs. This would allow us to return to a proper separation of concerns.
    - ryanbrunner 4y ago
      Sure, but that's an argument for creating new paradigms for having instantly available non-downloaded "apps". Right now, if you want a lot of what a webapp offers (100% cross-compatibility with any platform, instant updates, online syncing for free), you're basically stuck with HTML / Javascript.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      > What really needs to happen it a separation of HTML from UI markup elements Do you mean CSS? Using <b>, <I>, <strong>, etc has been “bad form” for a while (maybe not strong though)
      - frosted-flakes 4y ago
        <strong> and <em> are the recommended ways to semantically bold and italicize text. <b> and <i> don't have any semantics and can still be used where it makes sense.
egeozcan 4y ago
> Indentation _is_ information, which is lost here. Isn't it a "view" of information? Any sufficiently advanced text editor can recreate it with a simple key combination.
- robgibbons 4y ago
  Sure, but the author is advocating that you compose HTML this way. It would quickly become a mess of nested elements with zero visual indication of hierarchy. The DOM is a tree, with nested elements. Losing that information doesn't get you anything but tag soup (which is, oddly, what the author suggests this style is supposed to avoid)
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    The problem is that HTML has multiple uses. The author is describing the case of authoring content, with HTML used as a markup language. However a lot of websites and web applications use HTML more like a layout and templating engine for a GUI framework.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Only if the formatter is unaware of HTML. If it can't handle automatically closing <p> tags, then it's unaware and is trying to treat HTML like XML. Or, to put another way, HTML != DOM, even though HTML can be rendered into a DOM.
  - LeonB 4y ago
    In a tree you have branches off branches off branches etc. You can’t orient yourself - you can’t tell where you are - unless you count the branches. And indenting makes that visible. In the examples for TFA, you can tell your location from the names of the elements. Eg <td> is enough for you to know you’re probably inside a tr inside a table. And that is the more common case than the general tree example. But a method of describing html does have to answer the question of how it represents arbitrarily deep nesting. But I like the answers it’s given for the more common case of structures that are not arbitrarily deep.
jahewson 4y ago
Incorrect indentation is therefore misinformation.
- LeonB 4y ago
  Hi guido!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
aparks517 4y ago
I've been using this style - with some tweaks - for web apps too. I don't think I have it completely figured out yet, but it's promising so far. You can view the source of http://lofi.limo/ http://lofi.limo/ to see how it's working out.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I feel like this style just makes it harder to read and understand the HTML. But hey, if it works for you, great.
  - sph 4y ago
    This is the output of an app/templating system, i.e. not a single HTML page. Have you ever read the HTML of any dynamically generated page? It's unreadable.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      > This is the output of an app/templating system, i.e. not a single HTML page. I don't think that's correct. The article is literally talking about how to write HTML, and explaining the benefits of writing it in this style.
    - julianlam 4y ago
      > Have you ever read the HTML of any dynamically generated page? It's unreadable. Not with that attidude... if you write consistently and with intention, it turns out just fine. Check out the source for https://try.nodebb.org https://try.nodebb.org, for example. Dynamically generated, (mostly) syntactically correct, (mostly) human readable.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - ryanbrunner 4y ago
      All the HTML code in the app I maintain is pretty readable. At some point of complexity any HTML is difficult to parse, but if I hand-wrote a page in my app I think the HTML would be largely the same.
clairity 4y ago
it doesn't work for even slightly complex documents either. there's been a little meme-fad lately around minimalistic html like this, but to claim it's the "right" way to write html is pompous at best. not closing tags for instance is really asking for future headaches. sure, it works for a simple text list, but not when it gets even a little complicated (add links, images, buttons, etc.). even worse are p tags, where you have to memorize a whole matrix of what it can contain and what breaks out implicitly. with every insertion/deletion, you need to check the list. it's needless mental drag.
- niconii 4y ago
  You have to know about what breaks out of <p> tags regardless of whether or not you leave off the end tag, though. <p><div></div></p> is invalid HTML because <div> ends the paragraph, resulting in an unpaired </p>.
  - anjbe 4y ago
    And not just because of that. In XHTML‐as‐XML, where <div> does not implicitly end the paragraph, what you posted is still invalid because <p> cannot contain <div>.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago

That’s why HTML is not a language for ‘apps’.

Spivak 4y ago
Except for the fact that native apps also use SGML or XML inspired markup for their layout engines. A tree of heterogeneous objects maps extremely well to how people think about UI.
- WillusFredus 4y ago
  I agree that a tree structure can work well for mapping UIs, but HTML does not. It was specifically design as a textual markup language. Its role has been expanded, but it has been done so poorly. What really needs to happen it a separation of HTML from UI markup elements. HTML will be used solely for textual markup and a new markup language can be used for UIs. This would allow us to return to a proper separation of concerns.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    Sure, but that's an argument for creating new paradigms for having instantly available non-downloaded "apps". Right now, if you want a lot of what a webapp offers (100% cross-compatibility with any platform, instant updates, online syncing for free), you're basically stuck with HTML / Javascript.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > What really needs to happen it a separation of HTML from UI markup elements Do you mean CSS? Using <b>, <I>, <strong>, etc has been “bad form” for a while (maybe not strong though)
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      <strong> and <em> are the recommended ways to semantically bold and italicize text. <b> and <i> don't have any semantics and can still be used where it makes sense.

egeozcan 4y ago

> Indentation _is_ information, which is lost here. Isn't it a "view" of information? Any sufficiently advanced text editor can recreate it with a simple key combination.

robgibbons 4y ago
Sure, but the author is advocating that you compose HTML this way. It would quickly become a mess of nested elements with zero visual indication of hierarchy. The DOM is a tree, with nested elements. Losing that information doesn't get you anything but tag soup (which is, oddly, what the author suggests this style is supposed to avoid)
- nerdponx 4y ago
  The problem is that HTML has multiple uses. The author is describing the case of authoring content, with HTML used as a markup language. However a lot of websites and web applications use HTML more like a layout and templating engine for a GUI framework.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Only if the formatter is unaware of HTML. If it can't handle automatically closing <p> tags, then it's unaware and is trying to treat HTML like XML. Or, to put another way, HTML != DOM, even though HTML can be rendered into a DOM.
- LeonB 4y ago
  In a tree you have branches off branches off branches etc. You can’t orient yourself - you can’t tell where you are - unless you count the branches. And indenting makes that visible. In the examples for TFA, you can tell your location from the names of the elements. Eg <td> is enough for you to know you’re probably inside a tr inside a table. And that is the more common case than the general tree example. But a method of describing html does have to answer the question of how it represents arbitrarily deep nesting. But I like the answers it’s given for the more common case of structures that are not arbitrarily deep.

jahewson 4y ago

Incorrect indentation is therefore misinformation.

LeonB 4y ago
Hi guido!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

aparks517 4y ago

I've been using this style - with some tweaks - for web apps too. I don't think I have it completely figured out yet, but it's promising so far. You can view the source of http://lofi.limo/ http://lofi.limo/ to see how it's working out.

jaywalk 4y ago
I feel like this style just makes it harder to read and understand the HTML. But hey, if it works for you, great.
- sph 4y ago
  This is the output of an app/templating system, i.e. not a single HTML page. Have you ever read the HTML of any dynamically generated page? It's unreadable.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    > This is the output of an app/templating system, i.e. not a single HTML page. I don't think that's correct. The article is literally talking about how to write HTML, and explaining the benefits of writing it in this style.
  - julianlam 4y ago
    > Have you ever read the HTML of any dynamically generated page? It's unreadable. Not with that attidude... if you write consistently and with intention, it turns out just fine. Check out the source for https://try.nodebb.org https://try.nodebb.org, for example. Dynamically generated, (mostly) syntactically correct, (mostly) human readable.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    All the HTML code in the app I maintain is pretty readable. At some point of complexity any HTML is difficult to parse, but if I hand-wrote a page in my app I think the HTML would be largely the same.

clairity 4y ago

it doesn't work for even slightly complex documents either. there's been a little meme-fad lately around minimalistic html like this, but to claim it's the "right" way to write html is pompous at best. not closing tags for instance is really asking for future headaches. sure, it works for a simple text list, but not when it gets even a little complicated (add links, images, buttons, etc.). even worse are p tags, where you have to memorize a whole matrix of what it can contain and what breaks out implicitly. with every insertion/deletion, you need to check the list. it's needless mental drag.

niconii 4y ago
You have to know about what breaks out of <p> tags regardless of whether or not you leave off the end tag, though. <p><div></div></p> is invalid HTML because <div> ends the paragraph, resulting in an unpaired </p>.
- anjbe 4y ago
  And not just because of that. In XHTML‐as‐XML, where <div> does not implicitly end the paragraph, what you posted is still invalid because <p> cannot contain <div>.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]