5 ms·
The CSS at w3.org is gone
- zekica 4y agoThe problem is that they are sending gzipped css without specifying Content-Encoding in the response headers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- justinclift 4y agoTested it just now (Firefox on Linux), and the response (for me) has 'Content-Encoding: br'. So, it seems more like it's indicating Brotli compression, but the actual file (https://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/main https://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/main) is gz encoded.
- mxfh 4y agohttps://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/advanced.css https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/advanced.css is even still there unzipped.
- justinclift 4y agoInterestingly, at least with Firefox on Linux it seems to be decompressing the .css files ok... but borking on the javascript file that has the same incorrect content encoding header.
- ThreePinkApples 4y agoAnd the size difference appears to be only 0.2kB? 6.1kB from the zipped version and 6.3kB for the unzipped one
- citrin_ru 4y agoI see advanced.css uncompressed size is 25K and compressed (by zopfli) - 5.4K
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brabel 4y agoHTML: <link rel="stylesheet" href="/2008/site/css/minimum" type="text/css" media="all" /> <style type="text/css" media="print, screen and (min-width: 481px)"> /*<![CDATA[*/ @import url("/2008/site/css/advanced"); /*]]>*/ </style> <link href="/2008/site/css/minimum" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="only screen and (max-width: 480px)" /> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" /> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/2008/site/css/print" type="text/css" media="print" /> /2008/site/css/minimum headers: Content-Type: text/css;charset=utf-8 Transfer-Encoding: chunked Connection: keep-alive content-location: minimum.css.gz vary: negotiate,Accept-Encoding Downloading this file, I can see it's valid "gzip compressed data". Seems to be missing the Content-Encoding header?!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gamache 4y agoBest viewed in Lynx.
- quink 4y agoThat's a WCAG paddlin'. * Focus indicators * Text block width * Target Sizes Apart from that, even if it were there there's some trouble with the markup: * <abbr> tags missing * No landmark elements * bloody tabindex * repeated same div * search input has no visible label * no context-sensitive help or whatnot
- eu 4y agoThe site actually looks decent. Welcome back to 1995.
- internetter 4y agoYeah, props to them for having some structure! It's like CSS Naked Day [0] in the dead of January [0] https://css-naked-day.github.io/ https://css-naked-day.github.io/
- x98asfd 4y agoGood luck if you are using one of those SPA over engineered hipster framework.
- shadowgovt 4y agoIt's a testament to good structure that the site is legible without its styling. ... legible, not good. If I had to read documentation that looked like that all day I'd consider a career change (or, perhaps, building an infrastructure to improve the legibility of web pages...).
- bl4ckm0r3 4y agoThis no-js-no-css trend is gaining traction
- ghusto 4y agoNoJS I was aware of (and support where it makes sense, which is most of the time), but NoCSS? When did that start, and why?
- oblio 4y agoI'd assume it's a joke.
- internetter 4y agoBut also... I'd hardly call it a trend because It's been a thing for as long as I've used the web; but some 'classic' style programmers seem to opt out of CSS for their personal sites. One such example is Dan Luu [0], who wrote in a post [1] that styling decreased his viewership. Additionally, it can emphasize good structure that was concealed with CSS [0] https://danluu.com/ https://danluu.com/ [1] https://danluu.com/look-stupid/ https://danluu.com/look-stupid/
- oblio 4y agoAnyone who uses the abominable table border design from HTML1 needs some special kind of punishment.
- dredmorbius 4y agoThere's ... something ... to be said for a site with minimal markup which works in text-mode browsers. Though direct usage of those is probably a sliver of a fraction of all online usage, this also means that automated tools can work with a website. Scraping has both dark and light patterns and use-cases.
- x98asfd 4y agoWhat's not to like! 0K CSS, responsive, works in desktop, mobile and tablets, and not to mention blazing fast load speed.
- artemonster 4y agoSomeone got very tired of adjusting margins and just said: „screw it, Im done. Its even better without CSS“
- tinsmith 4y agoAm I the only one who likes it better this way?
- x98asfd 4y agoNo I think pretty most real old school developers prefer that, and it reads alot better on Lynx/Links2 type of browser. Browser != chrome || firefox,
- pictur 4y agoa comment you can only see on HN. I really like the pointless hatred towards CSS and javascript on this site lol
- ergonaught 4y agoI like it "better this way" conceptually, in that I like browsing with w3m/lynx/links/eww/etc but the content structure is bad "this way" (ex: scrolling past site nav links too much before I reach actual content; most of the vertical nav should and would be horizontal if this weren't a bug; etc).
- brettermeier 4y agoI personally hate it and want the CSS back.
- makach 4y agohm, the css seems to be there, but looks very obfuscated? could it be encrypted or attacked?
- noisy_boy 4y agoIt is gzipped
- internetter 4y agoIt's like CSS Naked Day [0] in the dead of January [0] https://css-naked-day.github.io/ https://css-naked-day.github.io/
- j-bos 4y agoI see they finally come out in favor of the perfect website: https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
- noisy_boy 4y agoTo view the missing CSS: wget -qO - https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum | gunzip -
- forgotpwd16 4y agoCan just visit: https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum.css https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum.css (and: https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/advanced.css https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/advanced.css for the imported one).
- kaptainscarlet 4y agoIt surprisingly reads better without the css. It somehow feels like my room when I throw out things I don't need.
- KirillPanov 4y agoSlow news day?
- internetter 4y agoFeel free to downvote if you don't like it :)
- mirekrusin 4y agoWhen will people learn to use web standards correctly?
- rustyf 4y agoless is more
- robinhood 4y agoA screenshot for those who read this news after it has been fixed: https://imgur.com/a/AauqekH https://imgur.com/a/AauqekH
- internetter 4y agoThanks. I also put it into archive.org before posting https://web.archive.org/web/20230125115413/https://www.w3.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230125115413/https://www.w3.or...
- iLoveOncall 4y agoYou can also inspect the source and delete the link to the stylesheet if you want to experience it yourself.
- dredmorbius 4y agoFirefox permits toggling site CSS: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34521875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34521875>
- crispyambulance 4y agoAs always when styling comes up there's always a few people on HN who claim to prefer "no CSS" because they "always" use Lynx, or deeply customize all content on their own from scratch, or are using a 1G flip phone, or care about milliseconds of loading time or they're RMS (oh, wait, stallman.css exists!). Sure, some idiosyncratic blogs can get away with that css-free "look" (eg https://danluu.com/ https://danluu.com/). The W3? NO? but now I guess so!
- jefftk 4y agoDan does have a bit of CSS, though: .pd{width:4em;flex-shrink:0;padding-bottom:.9em}.par div{display:flex}
- iLoveOncall 4y ago> some idiosyncratic blogs can get away with that css-free "look" (eg https://danluu.com/ https://danluu.com/) Not even. The articles there are incredibly compact blocks of text that are way too wide to be comfortable for reading. Minimal CSS is an absolute requirement if you want a website that is pleasant to read.
- leephillips 4y agoBut with a couple of keystrokes that are in my muscle memory I can narrow my browser window to any reading width I want. So there’s no problem, and the site is easier to read than almost all modern websites.
- threatofrain 4y agoModern web browsers also come with a readability mode built-in.
- dredmorbius 4y agoThough in fairness, that won't work for the w3.org homepage (at least not on Firefox).
- nneonneo 4y agoThe main CSS file they're using is https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum. If you download this with `curl 'https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum https://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/minimum' -H 'Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br'`, you see that it starts with 03 D7 86 1F 8B 08 08 and ends with 25 10 91 4D 7B 30 00 00 03. This is a brotli metablock header (03 D7 86: length = 3503 bytes, uncompressed), followed by a gzip header (1F 8B 08 08: signature, compression=deflate, filename present), and ends with a gzip trailer (25 10 91 4D 7B 30 00 00: crc32, size of file) and finally an empty brotli metablock header (03). So, what's happening is that they're serving gzip files from their server (which is hinted by the "content-location: minimum.css.gz" response header), which are being compressed again using brotli somewhere else (e.g. at a reverse proxy).
- infogulch 4y agoMy guess is they've been serving their css file direct from disk with no content encoding header, but browsers rolled their eyes and decoded it anyway (do they do that?). But now it's changed to serve behind a reverse proxy which isn't so forgiving and recompresses it with brotli (does it even reduce the size?) and that's too much for the browser to infer implicitly. Fin.
- nneonneo 4y agoWorth noting: if you're not seeing the Brotli header, it's probably because something (e.g. your browser) is transparently decoding the declared Content-Encoding (which is `br` for Brotli). That'll yield raw gzip data. In this case, your browser or other user agent has already applied Content-Encoding, so they aren't going to do it again.
- tannhaeuser 4y agoIf only the CSS WG had gone away ... Would've been the last thing WWW Inc. has influence over on the web. And even that has been a joke (of the consider-your-carreer-choices variety) from the beginning, while today it's just annoying holding on for job security. At least their complaining about being financially dependent on Google and being part of the web standard circus preventing real independent standardization makes for an entertaining read lately [1] if you had any doubt Google are the ones to call the shots. [1]: https://mastodon.social/@robin/109524929231432913 https://mastodon.social/@robin/109524929231432913
- nunez 4y agoHonestly even if this is a bug, it's really refreshing.
- itaibo 4y agoDisabling Brotli from Cloudflare would stop this error until they fix the Content-Encoding
- xwowsersx 4y agoI see this as an absolute win
- dredmorbius 4y agoThe bug's been fixed. Firefox users (desktop) can see the unstyled site by selecting View -> Page Style -> Unstyled. And yes, it is pleasantly readable even without CSS. Not ideal, but good.