3 ms·

You'd hope there would be at least an example that doesn't require JavaScript if this is a CSS thing. It could have made a good <noscript> block to remind you t

You'd hope there would be at least an example that doesn't require JavaScript if this is a CSS thing. It could have made a good <noscript> block to remind you to enable to see the editor.

schwartzworld 4y ago
Where is the rule that people need to complain about JavaScript at least once for every post?
- tomrod 4y ago
  Under the rule that identifies meta discussions are inevitable regarding no JS posts ;-)
- reaperducer 4y ago
  Where is the rule that people need to complain about JavaScript at least once for every post? It's there, but you can't see it because the rule requires JavaScript to view the rule.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    I believe that the rule is WOULD PROBABLY according to RFC 6919 [1] but it MIGHT be MAY WISH TO? [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919#section-5 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919#section-5
- dylan604 4y ago
  But in this case, it is a decent question. Why is it not called MetalliJS? It's not CSS so much that you can just open up a CSS file and manipulate it. You have to dive into a JS file to modify CSS? That's not intuitive at all. It just seems a very strange way of going about demoing a CSS library.
- toastal 4y ago
  It's about the experience. Having JavaScript is fine, but <noscript> is a part of accessibility. It's just plain broken with no warning when scripts are disabled. It's a wise practice to personally disable scripts by default with an add-on and only opt yourself into scripts as needed--for privacy, for security, saving bandwidth. In this specific case, one should be able to view the default demo without JS because it's a CSS library/demo and not a JS one. You can (and should) progressively enhance it with JS.
vultour 4y ago
Considering it's distributed as a JS library I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it requires javascript.
mikaelaast 4y ago
OP here. Never change, Hacker News. Never change. <3

You'd hope there would be at least an example that doesn't require JavaScript if this is a CSS thing. It could have made a good <noscript> block to remind you to enable to see the editor.

schwartzworld 4y ago

Where is the rule that people need to complain about JavaScript at least once for every post?

tomrod 4y ago
Under the rule that identifies meta discussions are inevitable regarding no JS posts ;-)
reaperducer 4y ago
Where is the rule that people need to complain about JavaScript at least once for every post? It's there, but you can't see it because the rule requires JavaScript to view the rule.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  I believe that the rule is WOULD PROBABLY according to RFC 6919 [1] but it MIGHT be MAY WISH TO? [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919#section-5 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919#section-5
dylan604 4y ago
But in this case, it is a decent question. Why is it not called MetalliJS? It's not CSS so much that you can just open up a CSS file and manipulate it. You have to dive into a JS file to modify CSS? That's not intuitive at all. It just seems a very strange way of going about demoing a CSS library.
toastal 4y ago
It's about the experience. Having JavaScript is fine, but <noscript> is a part of accessibility. It's just plain broken with no warning when scripts are disabled. It's a wise practice to personally disable scripts by default with an add-on and only opt yourself into scripts as needed--for privacy, for security, saving bandwidth. In this specific case, one should be able to view the default demo without JS because it's a CSS library/demo and not a JS one. You can (and should) progressively enhance it with JS.

vultour 4y ago

Considering it's distributed as a JS library I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it requires javascript.

mikaelaast 4y ago

OP here. Never change, Hacker News. Never change. <3