5 ms·
Xhtml Friends Network (2003)
- KronisLV 4y agoI kind of like it. It's so curious to visit sites and look 20 years into the past, where not everyone was on Facebook or whatever and we didn't even quite know what works and what doesn't. Just experimenting with new ideas that sort of could have been a thing (fediverse/web rings), but didn't pan out. Of course, people might prefer to keep the particulars of their relationships with others a bit more private than XFN would have you do. Regardless, it's very interesting when even old sites like that stick around and you can see those old ideas in great fidelity, perhaps sans a CRT monitor.
- wkdneidbwf 4y agooh man, haha, who ever thought this was a good idea… <view page source> “John only considers me an acquaintance?!”
- spiffytech 3y agoAs a point of comparison: MySpace launched that same year, and one of it's most prominent features was displaying your 8 closest friends in ranked order. It was a different time :)
- function_seven 4y agoFrom this page [1], there is apparently a site that'll allow you to look up relationships: > Phil McCluskey has written an XFN Relationship Lookup Engine. Introducing rubhub.com: I was very hesitant to click that link on my work machine. But it turns out that GrubHub now (anti-)typosquats their own domain. (EDIT: Nevermind, it just don't exist anymore. Stupid browser was trying to be helpful on my behalf) [1] http://gmpg.org/xfn/more http://gmpg.org/xfn/more
- neilv 4y agoIn the late '90s, I was a grad student working on AI agents and Web distributed-humans stuff. While trying out some else's new social semantic graph setup, I added links to people, including an undergrad assistant from our research group. This might've been uncool, even then, because the cheeky undergrad accepted, but coded my role to him as "service provider".
- ericflo 4y agoOoh, blast from the past. I wrote some Erlang code to crawl this stuff back in college. Just found it, wow: https://code.google.com/archive/p/erlysocial/ https://code.google.com/archive/p/erlysocial/
- warning26 4y agoCool find! One thing to note is that is what was, long ago, pitched as "Web 3.0"; a "semantic web" where all relationships between entities could be expressed in code.
- DonHopkins 4y agoIronic how so many of the kids currently pushing "Web 3.0" as crypto and NFT scams weren't even alive when "Web 3.0" as XHTML and Semantic Web were a big thing. My web goes to 11.
- earthboundkid 4y agoThis is how Mastodon verified links work.
- nayuki 4y agoThis page is delivered with the media type of text/html, not application/xhtml+xml. So it's not even using XHTML.
- kalleboo 4y agoWasn't there some issue with IE or something that prevented people from using the right mime type? I swear there was something like that going on back in the day. edit: yep https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/2.1.x/htmlfaq/ https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/2.1.x/htmlfaq/
- alexjplant 4y agoDo MIME types in HTTP headers affect how browsers render content? As far as I know most static web servers simply have a mapping between file extensions and MIME types that they send for response headers and that it's up to the DOCTYPE and quirks of the browser to determine how the page itself is rendered. Since this page's DOCTYPE is... <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> ...I'd say it absolutely is XHTML (assuming that it reasonably validates as such, i.e. closes all tags and so forth). Have things changed recently in this regard?
- freeone3000 4y agoThe rendering differences in modern browsers are actually way more lenient. By the spec: If it’s served from DISK with that header, it’ll be rendered as XHTML, with the accordant failures. If it’s served from web, and has a Content-Type, this overrides DOCTYPE. (Ex, if you wanted to show it as text…) This will cause the page to be rendered in “quirks mode” in older browsers, or as a standard HTML page in modern browsers. application/xhtml+xml is as different from text/html as text/plain, and they all absolutely change the rendering pipeline — or should. The difference in rendering lies in invalid XML documents — if you skip a closing tag in XHTML, the page should error and REFUSE TO RENDER. At all. Just display an error message to the end user. If your webpage doesn’t do this when it doesn’t have matching tags, it is not being rendered as XHTML by the spec.
- deleted 4y ago
- tamrix 4y agoCan't wait for xxxHTML and xxHTMLxx
- nashashmi 4y agoI kept wondering how stupid this seemed today but it looked so interesting then.
- DonHopkins 4y agoIt sounds like a special interest group for Quaker web designers.
- pyuser583 4y agoWow. Includes an early use of “blog.”
- LeoPanthera 4y agoNot that early. "Blogging" started to become popular in 1999.
- aidenn0 4y agoWow, according to Wikipedia, the first use of the term "blog" was May of 1999, when "web log" was turned into "we blog" as a joke, and the company Blogger launched in August of 1999.
- slim 4y agois the word "blog" used differently today ? (excuse my ignorance, I'm so old that I don't get what you guys are talking about)
- pyuser583 3y agoIt means the same thing now. A regularly updated newsfeed. An online newsletter.
- defanor 4y agoPerhaps worth mentioning that since 2004 there are RDFa and FOAF, serving a similar purpose (among other things). While XHTML is merged into HTML 5 (XHTML5).