4 ms·

I clicked hoping the w3c mastodon site would have HTML. But nope, just another mastodon v3+ that only does anything if you run javascript. The w3c should try to

I clicked hoping the w3c mastodon site would have HTML. But nope, just another mastodon v3+ that only does anything if you run javascript. The w3c should try to do better. It wasn't possible with twitter but it is with mastodon.

renewiltord 3y ago
You should probably reach out via email if you're willing to help and know a better way to do it.
zimpenfish 3y ago
You can choose your own frontend to login with though, can't you? Like Brutaldon[1] which is bare-bones if you want that. [1] https://brutaldon.org/about https://brutaldon.org/about
- superkuh 3y ago
  Is there a way to use this without having an account on the mastodon server? I just want to use my web browser to read text on a web page.
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    I don't think there is - it's specifically designed to be a user frontend. Although it should be possible to whip up a text-friendly view of a server you're not logged into assuming they allow non-authenticated access to the API.
Andrex 3y ago
Your comment was worded poorly so you're getting downvoted, but I too share the disappointment that Mastodon is shamlessly promoting itself while lacking a JS-free way to even view public posts.
- cmdlineluser 3y ago
  You can add `/embed` to the end of the URL (although it doesn't show replies/etc)
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Since mastodon posts are generally very small most posts are split up into multiple so looking at the /embed will only give you say, 1 of 4, like in that Polish/German train DRM story on HN earlier, https://social.hackerspace.pl/@q3k/111528162462505087/embed https://social.hackerspace.pl/@q3k/111528162462505087/embed Unfortunately /embed is not very useful.
  - o11c 3y ago
    they really should at least add that link to the noscript version of the site.
- mihular 3y ago
  Feel free to create such a client.
organsnyder 3y ago
Does the W3C have any priorities to promote HTML-only sites? Otherwise, what's the problem? There are (of course) many good reasons to not require Javascript, but just because the W3C oversees the HTML standard doesn't mean they can't also use complementary technologies.
- idop 3y ago
  The problem isn't that the website is not HTML-only, but rather that it is JavaScript-only (practically-speaking). If you're using NoScript, or otherwise have JavaScript disabled, you get an empty page with nothing but an error message.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    At least we had nitter for viewing tweets without the need to allow JS. AFAIK there's no nitter for mastodon (nastodon?) although you can get some data by looking at the RSS feed.
    - idop 3y ago
      I use nitter a lot now that most links on the Internet are to tweets. It provides an experience vastly superior to that of actual Twitter. It takes Twitter from an unreadable cesspool to a readable cesspool.
kstrauser 3y ago
W3C is using web technologies? Say it ain't so! But sarcasm aside, JS is a web standard, just like HTML and CSS. While I understand the opinion of people who don't want to execute JS in their browser, I'm also highly sympathetic to devs who want to use things that are enabled by default in all modern browsers.
- superkuh 3y ago
  https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progressive_enhancement https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progress... ... and this is neither.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Ironically, the wiki page you linked shows how to use JavaScript to show meaningful error messages to users. And in any case, graceful degradation is a good thing to shoot for, but far from a requirement. Mastodon is Free Software. If someone wants to fork it and make a version that replaces frontend JS with server side rendering, that's legal and fine.
WaffleIronMaker 3y ago
Looking through other server software[1], I totally agree that the majority of servers require JavaScript. However, there are a few that don't, such as Smithereen[2]. Picking a random Smithereen instance[3] lets us mirror the content without JavaScript (although it still doesn't seem to like being viewed through w3m). So, I think there's potential, but it's definitely not ideal. [1] https://fedidb.org/software https://fedidb.org/software [2] https://fedidb.org/software/smithereen https://fedidb.org/software/smithereen [3] https://friends.grishka.me/w3c@w3c.social https://friends.grishka.me/w3c@w3c.social

renewiltord 3y ago

You should probably reach out via email if you're willing to help and know a better way to do it.

zimpenfish 3y ago

You can choose your own frontend to login with though, can't you? Like Brutaldon[1] which is bare-bones if you want that. [1] https://brutaldon.org/about https://brutaldon.org/about

superkuh 3y ago
Is there a way to use this without having an account on the mastodon server? I just want to use my web browser to read text on a web page.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  I don't think there is - it's specifically designed to be a user frontend. Although it should be possible to whip up a text-friendly view of a server you're not logged into assuming they allow non-authenticated access to the API.

Andrex 3y ago

Your comment was worded poorly so you're getting downvoted, but I too share the disappointment that Mastodon is shamlessly promoting itself while lacking a JS-free way to even view public posts.

cmdlineluser 3y ago
You can add `/embed` to the end of the URL (although it doesn't show replies/etc)
- superkuh 3y ago
  Since mastodon posts are generally very small most posts are split up into multiple so looking at the /embed will only give you say, 1 of 4, like in that Polish/German train DRM story on HN earlier, https://social.hackerspace.pl/@q3k/111528162462505087/embed https://social.hackerspace.pl/@q3k/111528162462505087/embed Unfortunately /embed is not very useful.
- o11c 3y ago
  they really should at least add that link to the noscript version of the site.
mihular 3y ago
Feel free to create such a client.

organsnyder 3y ago

Does the W3C have any priorities to promote HTML-only sites? Otherwise, what's the problem? There are (of course) many good reasons to not require Javascript, but just because the W3C oversees the HTML standard doesn't mean they can't also use complementary technologies.

idop 3y ago
The problem isn't that the website is not HTML-only, but rather that it is JavaScript-only (practically-speaking). If you're using NoScript, or otherwise have JavaScript disabled, you get an empty page with nothing but an error message.
- autoexec 3y ago
  At least we had nitter for viewing tweets without the need to allow JS. AFAIK there's no nitter for mastodon (nastodon?) although you can get some data by looking at the RSS feed.
  - idop 3y ago
    I use nitter a lot now that most links on the Internet are to tweets. It provides an experience vastly superior to that of actual Twitter. It takes Twitter from an unreadable cesspool to a readable cesspool.

kstrauser 3y ago

W3C is using web technologies? Say it ain't so! But sarcasm aside, JS is a web standard, just like HTML and CSS. While I understand the opinion of people who don't want to execute JS in their browser, I'm also highly sympathetic to devs who want to use things that are enabled by default in all modern browsers.

superkuh 3y ago
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progressive_enhancement https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progress... ... and this is neither.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Ironically, the wiki page you linked shows how to use JavaScript to show meaningful error messages to users. And in any case, graceful degradation is a good thing to shoot for, but far from a requirement. Mastodon is Free Software. If someone wants to fork it and make a version that replaces frontend JS with server side rendering, that's legal and fine.

WaffleIronMaker 3y ago

Looking through other server software[1], I totally agree that the majority of servers require JavaScript. However, there are a few that don't, such as Smithereen[2]. Picking a random Smithereen instance[3] lets us mirror the content without JavaScript (although it still doesn't seem to like being viewed through w3m). So, I think there's potential, but it's definitely not ideal. [1] https://fedidb.org/software https://fedidb.org/software [2] https://fedidb.org/software/smithereen https://fedidb.org/software/smithereen [3] https://friends.grishka.me/w3c@w3c.social https://friends.grishka.me/w3c@w3c.social