3 ms·
> some of which have no provisions for css or js. And i'm going to go through the effort to support them, because they are valid i wish this would catch on (or
by geraldhh 3y ago
> some of which have no provisions for css or js. And i'm going to go through the effort to support them, because they are valid
i wish this would catch on (or even be a mandated accessibility requirement) and every website could have this kind of ultimate compatibility/fallback mode to pure html.
- aziaziazi 3y ago0. Country/state legislators starts discussing mandatory html version for static content. 1. Some website (not « webapps ») start providing an html only version. 2. First users wave engage: plenty of hn readers , others techies, people with disabilities. Some news enthusiasts find it useful to consume articles (and the web !) as a simple and peacefull content browsing way. 3. First wave share their enthusiasm. Others sites catch up. Second wave with people from all sides, including: 4. PM, advertisers, marketers, businessmans… all at them have different opinions about this. However those who have direct or indirect interests with online advertising also fear kpis decrease. 5. A bunch of ad lobbyist flood the legislators. End of legislation discussion.
- SilasX 3y agoStep 5 seems like an uphill battle. I suspect it will be more like, gradual extension of the new standard to support advertiser-beloved features, to the point that the original upsides of the standard are broken, as users have to keep chasing feature support. My earlier comments on this dynamic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30727672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30727672