4 ms·

I think of this as the "appification of websites", we need to stop doing it. We need to move back to SSR and sprinkles of JS on websites. On the other hand web

I think of this as the "appification of websites", we need to stop doing it. We need to move back to SSR and sprinkles of JS on websites. On the other hand web apps absolutely can play a little more with the UX if it provides value to the user. But if it's in the browser, some of this really do still apply. I'm all in on web apps, its a universally accessible platform for development outside the walled gardens of app stores. What we need to stop doing is treating every single website as an app! If you want your page to appear in search results on a search engine, it's not a web app it's a website.

holoduke 3y ago
On the other hand a good webapp can also be a website. Just matter of spending enough time on it.
satvikpendem 3y ago
> We need to move back to SSR and sprinkles of JS on websites. Fortunately with stuff like React Server Components, looks like we are moving back to sprinkling JS for websites, which I'm a big fan of.
- grishka 3y ago
  Is using some form of React for web development mandatory now?
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Why would it be mandatory?
    - grishka 3y ago
      It was a sarcasm.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        Not sure what was sarcastic about it...
bunga-bunga 3y ago
I really wish we could have browser “Accept: text/markdown” for raw documents, but that boat sailed the moment we got CSS.
- aerzen 3y ago
  Why though? We could have the browser apply the styles. And even allow user preferences to affect the presentation! kinda like firefox "article mode". But that text/markdown would have to be restricted not to include any html tags, which are allowed in the "common" md spec.
  - bunga-bunga 3y ago
    Article mode isn't perfect and not compatible with non-articles. Markdown forces content to be just content. > would have to be restricted not to include any html tags The point of this would be to deliver pure content, so "any tag" would definitely not be allowed. My user agent would decide what to render and how.
    - guggle 3y ago
      gemtext ? https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/gemtext.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/gemtext.gmi
  - KirillPanov 3y ago
    > But that text/markdown would have to be restricted not to include any html tags, which are allowed in the "common" md spec. Forbidding them is a one-line change to the spec. It really annoys me that people keep bringing this up, as if they can't imagine "markdown with html disallowed".
- KirillPanov 3y ago
  If Gemini had picked markdown instead of gemtext I would've jumped in with both feet. I get it though -- they're trying to resurrect gopher, which is what gemtext is a modernification of. Still, I think markdown is our best shot at recovering the real web. And yes, I know there's a standardization problem. Just pick a standard and run with it. Difficulty picking one is not a reason to pick none. And in case it wasn't obvious I'm talking about markdown without embedded html here.
bo1024 3y ago
You might like this commentary: https://notan.app/ https://notan.app/

holoduke 3y ago

On the other hand a good webapp can also be a website. Just matter of spending enough time on it.

satvikpendem 3y ago

> We need to move back to SSR and sprinkles of JS on websites. Fortunately with stuff like React Server Components, looks like we are moving back to sprinkling JS for websites, which I'm a big fan of.

grishka 3y ago
Is using some form of React for web development mandatory now?
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Why would it be mandatory?
  - grishka 3y ago
    It was a sarcasm.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Not sure what was sarcastic about it...

bunga-bunga 3y ago

I really wish we could have browser “Accept: text/markdown” for raw documents, but that boat sailed the moment we got CSS.

aerzen 3y ago
Why though? We could have the browser apply the styles. And even allow user preferences to affect the presentation! kinda like firefox "article mode". But that text/markdown would have to be restricted not to include any html tags, which are allowed in the "common" md spec.
- bunga-bunga 3y ago
  Article mode isn't perfect and not compatible with non-articles. Markdown forces content to be just content. > would have to be restricted not to include any html tags The point of this would be to deliver pure content, so "any tag" would definitely not be allowed. My user agent would decide what to render and how.
  - guggle 3y ago
    gemtext ? https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/gemtext.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/gemtext.gmi
- KirillPanov 3y ago
  > But that text/markdown would have to be restricted not to include any html tags, which are allowed in the "common" md spec. Forbidding them is a one-line change to the spec. It really annoys me that people keep bringing this up, as if they can't imagine "markdown with html disallowed".
KirillPanov 3y ago
If Gemini had picked markdown instead of gemtext I would've jumped in with both feet. I get it though -- they're trying to resurrect gopher, which is what gemtext is a modernification of. Still, I think markdown is our best shot at recovering the real web. And yes, I know there's a standardization problem. Just pick a standard and run with it. Difficulty picking one is not a reason to pick none. And in case it wasn't obvious I'm talking about markdown without embedded html here.

bo1024 3y ago

You might like this commentary: https://notan.app/ https://notan.app/