3 ms·

Except this custom one I just invented that I implement in my custom browser

by TZubiri 2y ago

byearthithatius 2y ago
Too bad OP is not omniscient and capable of predicting your made up tags
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > Too bad OP is not omniscient and capable of predicting your made up tags I think a more accurate word here would be "prescient". "Omniscient" means knowing everything, but I believe that "everything" doesn't include "everything now and in the future. "Prescient" means knowing future events, i.e. "predicting" (Emphasis mine)
  - riffraff 2y ago
    That's obviously up to your definition, but omniscience as commonly understood as an attribute of the Christian God is also knowledge of future events (which is why it's usually argued that it conflicts with free will). "The future" is part of "everything".
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      I agree with your reasoning (I'm not married to those definitions). Looking at it again, I would still say that "prescient" would be more accurate, because: 1. Omniscient is a superset that include prescient" 2. Prescient is a narrower meaning than omniscient. IOW, when describing a car, for example 1. "Automobile" can be used to describe my wife's car 2. "SUV" is a more accurate description. So I'll still go with "prescient" being more accurate, in much the same way that "SUV is more accurate.
ruined 2y ago
ive been demaking html elements by removing them from my custom browser so it evens out
- TZubiri 2y ago
  But I didn't demark them so they are still elements. Also Oxygen was mentioned, but not Argon
somat 2y ago
Raises the question, how far can you get using only custom elements and css? It sometimes appears that the modern ideal is to not have an element "do" anything on it's own and depend on the css to define it's purpose. But we still have a lot of historical baggage we are carrying around.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > Raises the question, how far can you get using only custom elements and css? I am so glad to see someone use "raises the question" correctly instead of using "begs the question" which does not mean "raise the question". In response to your question - you'd be surprised if you have a few (3-4) webcomponents for the most common needs in front-end; things like client-side includes, etc. In fact, with just client-side includes you get 50% of what a front-end framework gives you (ability to create reusable and standalone components). Of course then you spend the time you won in ditching the framework to figure out ways to pierce the shadowroot so you can apply your global styles to the component :-( Ask me how I know.

Except this custom one I just invented that I implement in my custom browser

byearthithatius 2y ago

Too bad OP is not omniscient and capable of predicting your made up tags

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 2y ago
> Too bad OP is not omniscient and capable of predicting your made up tags I think a more accurate word here would be "prescient". "Omniscient" means knowing everything, but I believe that "everything" doesn't include "everything now and in the future. "Prescient" means knowing future events, i.e. "predicting" (Emphasis mine)
- riffraff 2y ago
  That's obviously up to your definition, but omniscience as commonly understood as an attribute of the Christian God is also knowledge of future events (which is why it's usually argued that it conflicts with free will). "The future" is part of "everything".
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    I agree with your reasoning (I'm not married to those definitions). Looking at it again, I would still say that "prescient" would be more accurate, because: 1. Omniscient is a superset that include prescient" 2. Prescient is a narrower meaning than omniscient. IOW, when describing a car, for example 1. "Automobile" can be used to describe my wife's car 2. "SUV" is a more accurate description. So I'll still go with "prescient" being more accurate, in much the same way that "SUV is more accurate.

ruined 2y ago

ive been demaking html elements by removing them from my custom browser so it evens out

TZubiri 2y ago
But I didn't demark them so they are still elements. Also Oxygen was mentioned, but not Argon

somat 2y ago

Raises the question, how far can you get using only custom elements and css? It sometimes appears that the modern ideal is to not have an element "do" anything on it's own and depend on the css to define it's purpose. But we still have a lot of historical baggage we are carrying around.

lelanthran 2y ago
> Raises the question, how far can you get using only custom elements and css? I am so glad to see someone use "raises the question" correctly instead of using "begs the question" which does not mean "raise the question". In response to your question - you'd be surprised if you have a few (3-4) webcomponents for the most common needs in front-end; things like client-side includes, etc. In fact, with just client-side includes you get 50% of what a front-end framework gives you (ability to create reusable and standalone components). Of course then you spend the time you won in ditching the framework to figure out ways to pierce the shadowroot so you can apply your global styles to the component :-( Ask me how I know.