7 ms·

I Blog with Raw HTML

114 points by poga 2y ago

dgeiser13 2y ago
Quite the unflex. I remember when everyone wrote websites in "Raw HTML".
poga 2y ago
I'm blogging with Raw HTML since the beginning of this year. The biggest missing piece is probably RSS support which makes me sad. I can write a script to generate that from the list of article but I'm not sure if there's better way.
- troymc 2y ago
  RSS is human-readable XML, so you could just manually update your RSS file every time you write a new post, in a text editor.
- LorenDB 2y ago
  The moment you add an RSS script you cease to use raw HTML and start to use your own bespoke site generator. On the plus side, a personal project only changes when you intend for it to, so you don't need to worry about breakage. (Unless your scripting language breaks.)
- ggm 2y ago
  If you're using markdown and js, in what sense are you blogging in raw HTML? Not to doubt but it feels like a qualified version of the underlying state of affairs. I blog (for work) on WordPress and hate it. I could imagine using org mode or markdown, pandoc to emit HTML with some tuning and a simple script to publish via sftp.
- qudat 2y ago
  Bro just write your blog in rss, no styling needed. You need that raw RSS
- wonger_ 2y ago
  Perhaps this would work for you? https://feed-me-up-scotty.vincenttunru.com/ https://feed-me-up-scotty.vincenttunru.com/ It's a GitHub Action that regularly scrapes your page and checks for new entries, turning it into an RSS feed. Set up a redirect yourblog.com/feed -> you.github.io/feeds/feed.xml, then you're golden.
- jart 2y ago
  It's you're rawdogging your HTML then it's not that hard to rawdog RSS too. View source on this page: https://justine.lol/rss.xml https://justine.lol/rss.xml I got the template from a friend. Very easy.
- theandrewbailey 2y ago
  If I turn off Javascript, your blog breaks in ways that shouldn't be possible if it really was HTML (specifically, links and images disappear[0]). You're not blogging in raw HTML, but markdown. Your homepage is the most 'raw HTML' page I can find on your blog, because it uses real HTML elements to display things, and doesn't even use JS or CSS. [0] it's particularly bad on https://devpoga.org/cheap-complexity/ https://devpoga.org/cheap-complexity/
deadbabe 2y ago
Im confused, blogging with raw html but also using highlight.js and markdown?
- edflsafoiewq 2y ago
  Presumably meaning he directly edits the .html files instead of using any kind of SSG/build step. The Markdown is transformed with JS on the client-side.
- superkuh 2y ago
  re: static, there are two main points of view. Static from the visitor's perspective or static from the webmaster's perspective. This seems to be about static from the webmaster's perspective which is a "modern" view and one that seems to have overloaded the term since 2015 or so.
  - cookedcode 2y ago
    What? No... static web pages can have JavaScript, but everybody gets the same page over the wire. Dynamic web pages have some sort of program generating the resulting page for you, like PHP or Ruby; they can return different HTML for the same URL. That's dynamic. It has nothing to do with if you're the client or the server.
    - superkuh 2y ago
      For any communication I think we need to take as a premise that static HTML and static web sites are not the same category of thing. Any particular page on the web can be totally static or totally dynamic or a mix. There are static HTML pages on static web sites. There are dynamic HTML pages on static web sites. There are static HTML pages on dynamic web sites. And there are dynamic HTML pages on dynamic web sites. The meaning of static HTML is the least contentious. A static HTML page is just an .html (or .htm, or anything else if the mimetype is set right) hypertext markup langage document that is stored on a file system as a file and sent to the end user when they request the URL that maps to that file. The HTML encodes what the web site user will see and does not change. When the static .html file includes "static" (not really since it is executed code) javascript (or other executing language embeds) that changes the page to something other than displayed by the html in the file on disk. So it becomes a dynamic HTML page (for ~5 years called "DHTML"). The only place where static HTML becomes unclear is in the case where some webserver linked program generates the static HTML on demand with no storage of the HTML as a file on the filesystem before being sent to the site user. In this case even though the user sees only static HTML there's crucially no file ever created on the webserver so it's dynamic HTML. The meaning of static website is increasingly more unclear compounding on the fuzziness of what a static HTML page is. Generally there are the same two points of view as above but with a tweak. There's the website users point of view where a static web site is static if the pages are just HTML and do not require executing any code to view. If you (or your browser) look at the source you can read the text and see the image URLs. It does not have to be generated by the browser's execution of some client side code. Then there's the developer point of view where a static web site if the code required to generate the website is stored in a static file on the webserver. In this framing you can deploy a self contained .html file which includes the javascript code for a client side dynamic web application. This web application can completely change the text shown and even draw in outside information not in the file. But since it can be put on a CDN as a static asset it is a static web site. You advocate the developer-view of what static website means. But this perception is a modern overloading of the phrase. For literal decades static meant what the user-view of static website. Neither is wrong but unless you state it explicitly there will be misinterpretation like above.
G_o_D 2y ago
What do you mean by raw html ?? Using js and stylesheet in your head tag, well you didn't mean pure html only site
- rkagerer 2y ago
  Yeah, I was disappointed to see the site come up looking one way then quickly re-render in another aesthetic.
- talles 2y ago
  I think it means literally writing the blog post directly as HTML, instead of as something that will then be turned into HTML tags (like Markdown).
  - hotpocket777 2y ago
    But… he _is_ writing markdown.
    - talles 2y ago
      You are correct. His claim makes no sense.
123sereusername 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
superkuh 2y ago
A tiny bit of webdev-side dynamicism can really help with managing visitor-side static websites built on .html files in directories. If you run your own webserver and write HTML then check out server side includes. Being able to include .html fragments in other .html files means no need to edit the same bit in dozens of .html files (ie, left_menu.html, footer.html, etc). And since SSI hasn't really changed in 20 years the major implementations (nginx, apache, etc) have basically nill attack surface or mantainence burden. And there's no "rebuilding" or anything that's not HTML markup to maintain. HTML+webserver SSI is just more HTML but without the redundant editing.
- mattl 2y ago
  Sadly Kibo’s site uses SSI and is now totally trashed as a result. http://www.kibo.com http://www.kibo.com
- artps 2y ago
  Absolutely agree. Just for fun, I recently implemented SSI using Cloudflare Workers [1] — but with a twist to feel like it's from 2025. It's a bit of a shitcode experiment, but I really wanted to recapture that early hacking spirit. [1] https://github.com/artps/ssi https://github.com/artps/ssi
x86hacker1010 2y ago
Shit glitched out on load because you’re using JavaScript lol
- dima55 2y ago
  Yeah. This isn't "raw html", as I understand it.
alexgiann 2y ago
I recommend you https://nucelo.com https://nucelo.com. Open source minimal blog platform. Everything you want is included, rss or newsletter. I pay $4 per month. I used raw html for a while, then I switched to this platform.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
unsungNovelty 2y ago
Am curious. How is this raw HTML if you're using markdown? But on the other side, writing in raw HTML is a fascinating topic I've been very intrigued by. http://john.ankarstrom.se/html/ http://john.ankarstrom.se/html/ is a very inspiring post.
- lmm 2y ago
  I write my blog in markdown and serve it to the browser as such, with a one-liner javascript include to render it in browsers that support that. I like that the "canonical" post source is preserved and served (you can read it with telnet, in a pinch).
  - trog 2y ago
    Yeh but do you say you write your blog in markdown or 'raw HTML'?
  - flas9sd 2y ago
    had a look and I like it. More "raw markdown" (what the OP uses too) instead of HTML in web publishing is a good thing - basically because xml syntax is not how humans want to write. This, combined with git forges pages concept or tilde user accounts makes for nice corners in the webs.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      Sure, but writing in Markdown isn't how humans write either.
      - lmm 2y ago
        Markdown is the least bad way for humans to write, IME. It definitely beats handwriting, it definitely beats every other markup/formatting language, and subjectively I find it nicer than MS Word style "WYSIWYG" formatting although that part is maybe more arguable.
rickcarlino 2y ago
If plaintext blogging fits your vibe and you’ve not yet heard of it, be sure to check out the gemini:// protocol. An overview of the protocol, proxied from Gemini to HTTP, available here: https://geminiprotocol.net/ https://geminiprotocol.net/
- ddulaney 2y ago
  See also this review/critique from the cURL author, especially if you’re going to implement it yourself. Particularly around certificate handling and URL parsing, there’s a lot of underacknowleded complexity in Gemini. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/05/28/the-gemini-protocol-seen-by-this-http-client-person/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/05/28/the-gemini-protocol-s...
  - malfist 2y ago
    That's a really well written post. Thank you for sharing it, really makes you think about all the thought that has went into http and how important Chesterton's fence is
    - ddulaney 2y ago
      Yeah but also all of the legacy baggage that it comes with, y’know? Like the URL parsing stuff for example. The issue is that they pull in one of these enormous old RFC’s and also say “but UTF-8” without any more explanation. A better URL might be a good thing — scope it down to what’s in common use, design it tightly for your needs, etc. But if you’re gonna do that, do it! Rather than just pulling in an RFC with decades of baggage and then modifying it ad-hoc.
eviks 2y ago
> However, even a static site generator will deprecate some features one day No? You don't need to upgrade to the version that deprecates. Besides, what features are you using with such a simple blog the are at risk?
- mromanuk 2y ago
  I used wintersmith.io. At some point it was abandoned and eventually the node version needed was old and other stuff associated with it. It became a hassle.
  - eviks 2y ago
    Writing raw html and wiring it yourself is a hassle, how is not upgrading node a bigger one? Besides there are SSGs that are a single binary
    - cookedcode 2y ago
      I promise you, HTML is not a hassle... It's markup. You describe the page, and then... you're done. And if you don't use weird, niche tags, it'll work basically forever.
      - eviks 2y ago
        This is a patently false promise. Yes, it's markup, but a bad one un-ergonomic-suitable for direct human consumption. Even the author of the blog understands it and uses alternatives > with md-block for markdown > You describe the page, and then... you're done Unless you want to re-describe something, of course. Maybe sort a column in a table...
    - wink 2y ago
      I faintly remember when the kernel config asked you if you wanted both `a.out` and `ELF` support. No one says that single binaries compiled in the last 10 years might be usable without a VM in another 10 or 20 years. And no, 20 years for the same blog to exist isn't even so rare.
faizmokh 2y ago
> the longest lived one is based on hugo Upgrading hugo is not straightforward due to the backward incompatibility changes. Too much changes to care for a static generator.
- ashishb 2y ago
  That's one thing I did realize over the last year. It is not a huge work but still some work, especially, as you wait for themes to upgrade themselves with the newer version of Hugo.
- mattl 2y ago
  Isn’t Hugo distributed as a static binary? I assume that binary doesn’t ask you to upgrade.
- cookedcode 2y ago
  You are not obligated to update Hugo if your version works for you.
hk1337 2y ago
I really like Hugo but I couldn’t ever find the right look and theme that I liked and spent way too much time on it. I decided to just create markdown posts on GitHub on that special user repository where the readme contents end up on your profile.
fugazithehaxoar 2y ago
Whoah. Looks at Mr. Fancy here using DIVs on his blog. In my day we used the TD tag like a machine gun.
- aembleton 2y ago
  There are no divs in their blog
  - fugazithehaxoar 2y ago
    Check out the homepage.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jordanmorgan10 2y ago
Premature optimization
damion6 2y ago
Raw HTML is just that. This is all bootstrap.
lapcat 2y ago
> the blog you’re reading now is written in raw HTML, with md-block for markdown, and highlight.js for syntax highlighting. That doesn't sound like raw HTML to me. I write my own blog in raw HTML with a text editor (BBEdit), no JavaScript, and no server-side script either. For good measure, I also write my RSS feed in raw XML with a text editor.
- ryukoposting 2y ago
  For me, it blinked some markdown on the page briefly before formatting appeared. So, no, it's not raw HTML. For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My blog is written in markdown. HTML is a deeply unpleasant thing to write blogs with.
mediumsmart 2y ago
Blogging in raw html means you fire up emacs, tramp to the blogs index.html find the last closing p tag and underneath put the post headline and timestamp and an opening p tag on the next line and you are off to the races. Of course opening the index in tramp, putting the heading, timestamp and p tag goes into a function or paused kbd-macro so it fits into Mx blogthis
- skydhash 2y ago
  Lol. Once you start learning about Elisp and the Emacs platform, it's so trivial to write up scripts like this. Mostly due to the fact, that every command is also a function, and the whole state of the software is accessible. I have a bunch of ebooks (pdf) in a folder, and on macOS, I created a quick workflow that fuzzy search them (file name) and open the selected one using Alfred.app. I created the same feature for the shell using fzf, and the emacs version (using consult-find) was equally short.
- bigiain 2y ago
  Blam! <blows smoke off gun barrel> You do it just like that. But with vi.
- Jerrrry 2y ago
  [dead]
gwynforthewyn 2y ago
My favourite project of mine is a little web server to support raw html blogs! It can handle serving via ssl, and adds features like an rss feed, a sitemap and a few go templates to make directory listings easy to maintain. The README is pretty authoritative for documentation. https://github.com/PlayTechnique/andrew https://github.com/PlayTechnique/andrew
theden 2y ago
I like it, but raw HTML doesn't mean it has to look like it's from the 90s. He could centre the text with CSS, add some whitespace, specify system fonts, rather than just Times Roman etc. An example of what I mean: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ A more flashy example: https://thebestmotherfucking.website/ https://thebestmotherfucking.website/
PaulHoule 2y ago
I used to blog with Raw HTML https://ontology2.com/the-book/html5-the-official-document-language.html https://ontology2.com/the-book/html5-the-official-document-l... though I also published some Jupyter notebooks https://ontology2.com/essays/PropertiesColorsAndThumbnails.html https://ontology2.com/essays/PropertiesColorsAndThumbnails.h...
qbane 2y ago
I think the use of md-block cannot be considered as "raw HTML". Like CSS-in-JS cannot be considered as pure CSS.
virtorio13 2y ago
Using <article> with the HTML 4.0 Transitional doctype? More like, I Blog with Raw Invalid HTML.
- bigiain 2y ago
  "html" is mostly defined in the real world as "something most browsers will render". <html><head><title>My HTML Page</title></head><body>Hello world!</body></html> Is technically "invalid", but it's "html" in the sense that everything from w3m and Netscape Navigator through to Chrome bleed will render it as intended. (About to click the [reply] button hoping the HN software doesn't screw all that markup up.)
bigiain 2y ago
I thought I was _so_ funny when I wrote this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20011102031149/http://www.mightymedia.com.au/~bigiain/ https://web.archive.org/web/20011102031149/http://www.mighty...
asukachikaru 2y ago
Irrelevant to the topic, just wanted to say hi. I have the honor to know poga during teenage with shared interest, and you have always been an inspiration to me. Seeing your post on the front page of HN is a welcoming surprise. Regarding the topic, I resonate with the concern about personal blog having to follow the convention of certain technology. Wouldn't say I enjoy reading it (or any site) without some minimal styling though.
idlewords 2y ago
I blog with raw HTML too, but I don't blog about it. The "blog about the tools I use" tarpit is somewhat unique, it's like if online chefs were obsessed with creating knife and fork recipes.
- jart 2y ago
  What you've never seen a chef on a cooking show geek out about his favorite knives and pans?
  - graypegg 2y ago
    I think that’s misunderstanding the point they’re making. It’s not talking about knives, it’s talking about knife recipes. As in, “I use the pairing knife to cut the salmon” which is definitely similar to “I use HTML to write my blog”. Maybe if it was a unique, special pairing knife, sure. That could be a real conversation. But it’s just a normal pairing knife. You’re just announcing you make the thing, with the other thing that makes the first thing.
- tptacek 2y ago
  https://knifesteelnerds.com/ https://knifesteelnerds.com/
teddyrood 2y ago
I'd love to hear of static site generator tech that has a good history of stability. I too take a basic approach, where I use pandoc to generate HTML according to a template, but I'm lacking an RSS feed. That's a bit fiddly to hack up. https://dthompson.us/projects/haunt.html https://dthompson.us/projects/haunt.html looks okay.
hnbear 2y ago
> More importantly, Browsers and HTML are never deprecated. Browsers are, and HTML is on v5 and has deprecated things. And using JS definitely can be deprecated too. "Just raw HTML" is an odd statement when it's obviously not. And the if some markdown and JS are ok, why not some CSS too?
tonetheman 2y ago
[dead]
ziofill 2y ago
I’m curious, does [my blog](https://ziofil.github.io/ https://ziofil.github.io/) count as “raw html”? I do have some minor js and css, but I don’t rely on a static site generator and I do everything by hand…
jamesgeck0 2y ago
I browse with Javascript disabled by default. This blog loaded as a plain markdown file.
paulannesley 2y ago
As other comments mentioned, the content is written in Markdown and rendered in the browser. So “blog with raw HTML” feels like a stretch... that said, View Source in the browser shows the exact HTML document that's presumably hand-written in the source repo [1], so I guess it comes down to the definition of “raw”. It could mean “not pre-processed”. [1]: https://github.com/poga/devpoga.org/blob/58a202485cedeae91579dec3cb52a8dffabb9921/i-blog-with-raw-html/index.html https://github.com/poga/devpoga.org/blob/58a202485cedeae9157...
- bdhcuidbebe 2y ago
  > so I guess it comes down to the definition of “raw”. And the definition of ”HTML”. Document is markdown.
dankwizard 2y ago
I think OP is defining Raw HTML as an excuse to not bother with themes, style, or clever use of HTML. Just ignore the markdown and Javascript....
- cookedcode 2y ago
  "Of course it's raw HTML, if you ignore all the other stuff."
troad 2y ago
I don't know what I'm more offended by, the implication that writing 'raw' HTML is some noteworthy retro skill, or the fact the blog isn't actually written in raw HTML at all, but in Markdown.
- sleazebreeze 2y ago
  I had the same thought. 72kb of JS dependencies from some CDN to render that "raw HTML". If you are going to claim to be a purist, try actually being one first.
- cookedcode 2y ago
  Apparently "raw HTML" now means "just enough HTML to load a Markdown renderer into a JavaScript virtual machine". Amazing.
cadamsdotcom 2y ago
And we shall call this Rawblogging.
erwin-co 2y ago
I blog in raw machine code I don't need anything beyond the shell to echo binary values to the end of my current file. You can not beat me. I will publish at least one paragraph long blog post before the end of the month... /s
bdhcuidbebe 2y ago
I feel you op, hugo broke sites for me too. You had one job and all that… But build yourself a static site generator, its a few hours work tops. Then you have something to blog about.
inopinatus 2y ago
This is novice stuff. I write my blog by modifying the filesystem's binary structure by hand with a hex editor. There is no Javascript or CSS whatsoever and the document uses only elements, attributes, and behaviours that were both described in the original HTML v1.1 DTD and that have continued to appear in every intervening IETF, W3C, and WHATWG issuance since then. Many of the elements are therefore deprecated and currently unimplemented in all evergreen browsers. Nevertheless I live in firm expectation of their eventual reinstatement. The HTTP service is one I nicked from a grad student in my CS department circa 1995, it speaks only HTTP/0.9, and is written in a mixture of ksh and dd, requiring no other utilities. This runs on a SPARCstation 20 from the same era that has been repaired from scavenged parts so many times that the hostname spontaneously updated to "theseus" a few years ago. Fun fact: impurities in the copper I smelted to replace the power supply windings led (as you can no doubt imagine) to induction spikes on the drive rails, and the subsequent fsck erased all blog entries mentioning Jonathan Schwartz. So nothing of value was lost. Readers may be pleased to learn that despite all this I'm not totally retro; since SunOS 4.x is now out of support, the Kodiak is proudly booting NetBSD. The blog itself is, of course, optimised for viewing in Lynx. In fact it only works in Lynx
- gingersnap 2y ago
  https://xkcd.com/378/ https://xkcd.com/378/
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- rerdavies 2y ago
  Real programmers use octal not hex.
  - inopinatus 2y ago
    What can I say, I modernised. It feels like an age since I last toggled in a bootloader through a front panel. I'm also anticipating a bit of snark (pun intended) from the folks still twiddling data on their magnetic drums using an iron needle. It's all in good humour though, we continue to get along because I didn't switch to SVR4.
raincole 2y ago
Really weird flex, but okay.
Woshiwuja 2y ago
[dead]
luismedel 2y ago
> with md-block for markdown, and highlight.js for syntax highlighting ...served by a simple Kubernetes cluster, I suppose? Back to the roots! /s
culi 2y ago
This is not a Raw HTML blog. You're sending markdown to the browser and then a bunch of javascript to convert that mark down into HTML...
- kreetx 2y ago
  That might be the reason why this has been submitted (i.e, the author doesn't know what "raw HTML" is).
- immibis 2y ago
  Javascript loaded from Cloudflare! What's the chances Cloudflare (current age: 14.5 years) is still around in 20 years and still providing this Javascript (current age: 30 years) file (current age: beginning of Israel's current bombing of Gaza)? And another one loaded from the website of the creator of that module! Last commit 2 years ago. Created 1 year before that. Will it continue to exist?
- ssttoo 2y ago
  Ha! I just did exactly this as a joke [1]. Even using the default Apache’s directory listing page to give me the list of articles [1] https://lizzy.js.org https://lizzy.js.org
sodimel 2y ago
Hey, I blog with raw TXT! https://misc.l3m.in/txt/raw_txt.txt https://misc.l3m.in/txt/raw_txt.txt
- user432678 2y ago
  I was surprised how good txt works on mobile with reader mode!
- vaylian 2y ago
  Existing discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42997896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42997896
bilekas 2y ago
I get the impression this is a bit of a meme... "Raw. But cooked" At the very least the discussion here is popcorn worthy.
globular-toast 2y ago
I used to blog with raw html. In 1999 when I was 12. It sucked. There is a reason why we use things like markdown now. Still, you kids should definitely dig into the fundamentals at least one time and write raw html. Just don't stay there and pretend it's somehow better for you.
- cookedcode 2y ago
  Lots of things suck when you're 12. Speak for yourself, though, HTML really isn't that difficult.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    Didn't say it was difficult. Doing the dishes isn't difficult, but it still sucks.
Elfener 2y ago
I see markdown for a second every time I load this page; if you say "raw html" at least convert from markdown on the server!
Popeyes 2y ago
As others mention its not raw HTML, but also the browser is applying styles of it's own - you can't get away from that. Isn't that reason we have CSSS resets so we have a baseline starting point that other browsers have forced upon us. How long ago were the default CSS rules set for a browser. They should probably change.
Pooge 2y ago
Reader mode isn't available. Why?
- vaylian 2y ago
  The page doesn't use the "right" HTML tags: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47822691/how-do-you-create-a-web-page-for-reader-mode https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47822691/how-do-you-crea...
- aembleton 2y ago
  Probably because there isn't enough 'raw' HTML. Its largely markdown thats converted by JS on your browser.
dzek69 2y ago
Is this a parody of something? "raw html" that does not work without JS (I mean literally, links are not links without JS), but on the other hand looks ugly even if 10 lines of CSS would make it look nice
- mattstir 2y ago
  Could you elaborate on "links are not links without JS"?
  - rchaud 2y ago
    If you turn Javascript off, the Markdown-formatted text will not display as a clickable link, but like "[hugo](https://gohugo.io/ https://gohugo.io/)". You would need to copy and paste the link into a browser address bar to navigate there instead of just clicking the link.
cookedcode 2y ago
Lmao no you don't, you use a little HTML to load JavaScript to render Markdown. Here's how you write a blog with raw HTML: 1. Write some HTML to a file. (No loading third-party JavaScript.) 2. Host that file. That's it, that's the whole thing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tannhaeuser 2y ago
To those taking issue with the "raw" HTML claim when the author actually writes markdown syntax and converts it to HTML: SGML, on which HTML is based and which is originally understood to supply the authoring features HTML itself is lacking, has the SHORTREF capability [1] which can map custom tokens into markup and thus implement a large portion of markdown in pure SGML, if still not "raw" HTML. [1]: https://sgmljs.net/docs/sgmlrefman.html#short-references https://sgmljs.net/docs/sgmlrefman.html#short-references
rssoconnor 2y ago
I literally blog with raw SGML. Each post comes with a handful per post ENTITYs for that post's common abbreviations and links. Unlike inopinatus's comment, I do keep up with "modern" standards, which is why my posts conform to the "ISO/IEC 15445:2000//DTD HyperText Markup Language//EN" doctype, the latest HTML standard approved by the ISO. Blog content is assembled via various SGML entities includes into a prehtml file of "-//ISO-HTML User's Guide//DTD ISO-HTML Preparation//EN" doctype per ISO 15445:2000 recommendations[0]. This is all processed with osgmlnorm through a somewhat simple Makefile to generate the resulting HTML files. [0] https://rogerprice.org/15445/UG.html#DOCPREP https://rogerprice.org/15445/UG.html#DOCPREP
- AlienRobot 2y ago
  I don't know what kind of competition this is, but I'm waiting for someone to say they blog in XML with XSLT.
  - layer8 2y ago
    That’s less impressive than SGML.
  - jasonkester 2y ago
    As requested: http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml The upside is that the entire html page is content. I defy google to not figure out what to index here: view-source:http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml The downside is everything else about the experience.
    - lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
      This is blowing my mind. That's really cool.
- ttepasse 2y ago
  You know, I am so happy that one other person on earth knows this HTML dialect.
skapadia 2y ago
I blog with stone tablets.
reassess_blind 2y ago
Why are there so many of these exact kind of posts lately? I swear I’ve seen 10 posts in the last month with some variation on “I use less technology to do X than the next guy”. It might be noteworthy if the author had an interesting problem to tackle, previously used a convoluted stack to accomplish it but then stripped it down to basics - but no, this is just “I wrote HTML to make a website”. I’d rather read “I used a hammer to hit a nail”.

114 points by poga 2y ago

Quite the unflex. I remember when everyone wrote websites in "Raw HTML".

poga 2y ago

I'm blogging with Raw HTML since the beginning of this year. The biggest missing piece is probably RSS support which makes me sad. I can write a script to generate that from the list of article but I'm not sure if there's better way.

troymc 2y ago
RSS is human-readable XML, so you could just manually update your RSS file every time you write a new post, in a text editor.
LorenDB 2y ago
The moment you add an RSS script you cease to use raw HTML and start to use your own bespoke site generator. On the plus side, a personal project only changes when you intend for it to, so you don't need to worry about breakage. (Unless your scripting language breaks.)
ggm 2y ago
If you're using markdown and js, in what sense are you blogging in raw HTML? Not to doubt but it feels like a qualified version of the underlying state of affairs. I blog (for work) on WordPress and hate it. I could imagine using org mode or markdown, pandoc to emit HTML with some tuning and a simple script to publish via sftp.
qudat 2y ago
Bro just write your blog in rss, no styling needed. You need that raw RSS
wonger_ 2y ago
Perhaps this would work for you? https://feed-me-up-scotty.vincenttunru.com/ https://feed-me-up-scotty.vincenttunru.com/ It's a GitHub Action that regularly scrapes your page and checks for new entries, turning it into an RSS feed. Set up a redirect yourblog.com/feed -> you.github.io/feeds/feed.xml, then you're golden.
jart 2y ago
It's you're rawdogging your HTML then it's not that hard to rawdog RSS too. View source on this page: https://justine.lol/rss.xml https://justine.lol/rss.xml I got the template from a friend. Very easy.
theandrewbailey 2y ago
If I turn off Javascript, your blog breaks in ways that shouldn't be possible if it really was HTML (specifically, links and images disappear[0]). You're not blogging in raw HTML, but markdown. Your homepage is the most 'raw HTML' page I can find on your blog, because it uses real HTML elements to display things, and doesn't even use JS or CSS. [0] it's particularly bad on https://devpoga.org/cheap-complexity/ https://devpoga.org/cheap-complexity/

deadbabe 2y ago

Im confused, blogging with raw html but also using highlight.js and markdown?

edflsafoiewq 2y ago
Presumably meaning he directly edits the .html files instead of using any kind of SSG/build step. The Markdown is transformed with JS on the client-side.
superkuh 2y ago
re: static, there are two main points of view. Static from the visitor's perspective or static from the webmaster's perspective. This seems to be about static from the webmaster's perspective which is a "modern" view and one that seems to have overloaded the term since 2015 or so.
- cookedcode 2y ago
  What? No... static web pages can have JavaScript, but everybody gets the same page over the wire. Dynamic web pages have some sort of program generating the resulting page for you, like PHP or Ruby; they can return different HTML for the same URL. That's dynamic. It has nothing to do with if you're the client or the server.
  - superkuh 2y ago
    For any communication I think we need to take as a premise that static HTML and static web sites are not the same category of thing. Any particular page on the web can be totally static or totally dynamic or a mix. There are static HTML pages on static web sites. There are dynamic HTML pages on static web sites. There are static HTML pages on dynamic web sites. And there are dynamic HTML pages on dynamic web sites. The meaning of static HTML is the least contentious. A static HTML page is just an .html (or .htm, or anything else if the mimetype is set right) hypertext markup langage document that is stored on a file system as a file and sent to the end user when they request the URL that maps to that file. The HTML encodes what the web site user will see and does not change. When the static .html file includes "static" (not really since it is executed code) javascript (or other executing language embeds) that changes the page to something other than displayed by the html in the file on disk. So it becomes a dynamic HTML page (for ~5 years called "DHTML"). The only place where static HTML becomes unclear is in the case where some webserver linked program generates the static HTML on demand with no storage of the HTML as a file on the filesystem before being sent to the site user. In this case even though the user sees only static HTML there's crucially no file ever created on the webserver so it's dynamic HTML. The meaning of static website is increasingly more unclear compounding on the fuzziness of what a static HTML page is. Generally there are the same two points of view as above but with a tweak. There's the website users point of view where a static web site is static if the pages are just HTML and do not require executing any code to view. If you (or your browser) look at the source you can read the text and see the image URLs. It does not have to be generated by the browser's execution of some client side code. Then there's the developer point of view where a static web site if the code required to generate the website is stored in a static file on the webserver. In this framing you can deploy a self contained .html file which includes the javascript code for a client side dynamic web application. This web application can completely change the text shown and even draw in outside information not in the file. But since it can be put on a CDN as a static asset it is a static web site. You advocate the developer-view of what static website means. But this perception is a modern overloading of the phrase. For literal decades static meant what the user-view of static website. Neither is wrong but unless you state it explicitly there will be misinterpretation like above.

G_o_D 2y ago

What do you mean by raw html ?? Using js and stylesheet in your head tag, well you didn't mean pure html only site

rkagerer 2y ago
Yeah, I was disappointed to see the site come up looking one way then quickly re-render in another aesthetic.
talles 2y ago
I think it means literally writing the blog post directly as HTML, instead of as something that will then be turned into HTML tags (like Markdown).
- hotpocket777 2y ago
  But… he _is_ writing markdown.
  - talles 2y ago
    You are correct. His claim makes no sense.

123sereusername 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

superkuh 2y ago

A tiny bit of webdev-side dynamicism can really help with managing visitor-side static websites built on .html files in directories. If you run your own webserver and write HTML then check out server side includes. Being able to include .html fragments in other .html files means no need to edit the same bit in dozens of .html files (ie, left_menu.html, footer.html, etc). And since SSI hasn't really changed in 20 years the major implementations (nginx, apache, etc) have basically nill attack surface or mantainence burden. And there's no "rebuilding" or anything that's not HTML markup to maintain. HTML+webserver SSI is just more HTML but without the redundant editing.

mattl 2y ago
Sadly Kibo’s site uses SSI and is now totally trashed as a result. http://www.kibo.com http://www.kibo.com
artps 2y ago
Absolutely agree. Just for fun, I recently implemented SSI using Cloudflare Workers [1] — but with a twist to feel like it's from 2025. It's a bit of a shitcode experiment, but I really wanted to recapture that early hacking spirit. [1] https://github.com/artps/ssi https://github.com/artps/ssi

x86hacker1010 2y ago

Shit glitched out on load because you’re using JavaScript lol

dima55 2y ago
Yeah. This isn't "raw html", as I understand it.

alexgiann 2y ago

I recommend you https://nucelo.com https://nucelo.com. Open source minimal blog platform. Everything you want is included, rss or newsletter. I pay $4 per month. I used raw html for a while, then I switched to this platform.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

unsungNovelty 2y ago

Am curious. How is this raw HTML if you're using markdown? But on the other side, writing in raw HTML is a fascinating topic I've been very intrigued by. http://john.ankarstrom.se/html/ http://john.ankarstrom.se/html/ is a very inspiring post.

lmm 2y ago
I write my blog in markdown and serve it to the browser as such, with a one-liner javascript include to render it in browsers that support that. I like that the "canonical" post source is preserved and served (you can read it with telnet, in a pinch).
- trog 2y ago
  Yeh but do you say you write your blog in markdown or 'raw HTML'?
- flas9sd 2y ago
  had a look and I like it. More "raw markdown" (what the OP uses too) instead of HTML in web publishing is a good thing - basically because xml syntax is not how humans want to write. This, combined with git forges pages concept or tilde user accounts makes for nice corners in the webs.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Sure, but writing in Markdown isn't how humans write either.
    - lmm 2y ago
      Markdown is the least bad way for humans to write, IME. It definitely beats handwriting, it definitely beats every other markup/formatting language, and subjectively I find it nicer than MS Word style "WYSIWYG" formatting although that part is maybe more arguable.

rickcarlino 2y ago

If plaintext blogging fits your vibe and you’ve not yet heard of it, be sure to check out the gemini:// protocol. An overview of the protocol, proxied from Gemini to HTTP, available here: https://geminiprotocol.net/ https://geminiprotocol.net/

ddulaney 2y ago
See also this review/critique from the cURL author, especially if you’re going to implement it yourself. Particularly around certificate handling and URL parsing, there’s a lot of underacknowleded complexity in Gemini. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/05/28/the-gemini-protocol-seen-by-this-http-client-person/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/05/28/the-gemini-protocol-s...
- malfist 2y ago
  That's a really well written post. Thank you for sharing it, really makes you think about all the thought that has went into http and how important Chesterton's fence is
  - ddulaney 2y ago
    Yeah but also all of the legacy baggage that it comes with, y’know? Like the URL parsing stuff for example. The issue is that they pull in one of these enormous old RFC’s and also say “but UTF-8” without any more explanation. A better URL might be a good thing — scope it down to what’s in common use, design it tightly for your needs, etc. But if you’re gonna do that, do it! Rather than just pulling in an RFC with decades of baggage and then modifying it ad-hoc.

eviks 2y ago

> However, even a static site generator will deprecate some features one day No? You don't need to upgrade to the version that deprecates. Besides, what features are you using with such a simple blog the are at risk?

mromanuk 2y ago
I used wintersmith.io. At some point it was abandoned and eventually the node version needed was old and other stuff associated with it. It became a hassle.
- eviks 2y ago
  Writing raw html and wiring it yourself is a hassle, how is not upgrading node a bigger one? Besides there are SSGs that are a single binary
  - cookedcode 2y ago
    I promise you, HTML is not a hassle... It's markup. You describe the page, and then... you're done. And if you don't use weird, niche tags, it'll work basically forever.
    - eviks 2y ago
      This is a patently false promise. Yes, it's markup, but a bad one un-ergonomic-suitable for direct human consumption. Even the author of the blog understands it and uses alternatives > with md-block for markdown > You describe the page, and then... you're done Unless you want to re-describe something, of course. Maybe sort a column in a table...
  - wink 2y ago
    I faintly remember when the kernel config asked you if you wanted both `a.out` and `ELF` support. No one says that single binaries compiled in the last 10 years might be usable without a VM in another 10 or 20 years. And no, 20 years for the same blog to exist isn't even so rare.

faizmokh 2y ago

> the longest lived one is based on hugo Upgrading hugo is not straightforward due to the backward incompatibility changes. Too much changes to care for a static generator.

ashishb 2y ago
That's one thing I did realize over the last year. It is not a huge work but still some work, especially, as you wait for themes to upgrade themselves with the newer version of Hugo.
mattl 2y ago
Isn’t Hugo distributed as a static binary? I assume that binary doesn’t ask you to upgrade.
cookedcode 2y ago
You are not obligated to update Hugo if your version works for you.

hk1337 2y ago

I really like Hugo but I couldn’t ever find the right look and theme that I liked and spent way too much time on it. I decided to just create markdown posts on GitHub on that special user repository where the readme contents end up on your profile.

fugazithehaxoar 2y ago

Whoah. Looks at Mr. Fancy here using DIVs on his blog. In my day we used the TD tag like a machine gun.

aembleton 2y ago
There are no divs in their blog
- fugazithehaxoar 2y ago
  Check out the homepage.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jordanmorgan10 2y ago

Premature optimization

damion6 2y ago

Raw HTML is just that. This is all bootstrap.

lapcat 2y ago

> the blog you’re reading now is written in raw HTML, with md-block for markdown, and highlight.js for syntax highlighting. That doesn't sound like raw HTML to me. I write my own blog in raw HTML with a text editor (BBEdit), no JavaScript, and no server-side script either. For good measure, I also write my RSS feed in raw XML with a text editor.

ryukoposting 2y ago
For me, it blinked some markdown on the page briefly before formatting appeared. So, no, it's not raw HTML. For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My blog is written in markdown. HTML is a deeply unpleasant thing to write blogs with.

mediumsmart 2y ago

Blogging in raw html means you fire up emacs, tramp to the blogs index.html find the last closing p tag and underneath put the post headline and timestamp and an opening p tag on the next line and you are off to the races. Of course opening the index in tramp, putting the heading, timestamp and p tag goes into a function or paused kbd-macro so it fits into Mx blogthis

skydhash 2y ago
Lol. Once you start learning about Elisp and the Emacs platform, it's so trivial to write up scripts like this. Mostly due to the fact, that every command is also a function, and the whole state of the software is accessible. I have a bunch of ebooks (pdf) in a folder, and on macOS, I created a quick workflow that fuzzy search them (file name) and open the selected one using Alfred.app. I created the same feature for the shell using fzf, and the emacs version (using consult-find) was equally short.
bigiain 2y ago
Blam! <blows smoke off gun barrel> You do it just like that. But with vi.
Jerrrry 2y ago
[dead]

gwynforthewyn 2y ago

My favourite project of mine is a little web server to support raw html blogs! It can handle serving via ssl, and adds features like an rss feed, a sitemap and a few go templates to make directory listings easy to maintain. The README is pretty authoritative for documentation. https://github.com/PlayTechnique/andrew https://github.com/PlayTechnique/andrew

theden 2y ago

I like it, but raw HTML doesn't mean it has to look like it's from the 90s. He could centre the text with CSS, add some whitespace, specify system fonts, rather than just Times Roman etc. An example of what I mean: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ A more flashy example: https://thebestmotherfucking.website/ https://thebestmotherfucking.website/

PaulHoule 2y ago

I used to blog with Raw HTML https://ontology2.com/the-book/html5-the-official-document-language.html https://ontology2.com/the-book/html5-the-official-document-l... though I also published some Jupyter notebooks https://ontology2.com/essays/PropertiesColorsAndThumbnails.html https://ontology2.com/essays/PropertiesColorsAndThumbnails.h...

qbane 2y ago

I think the use of md-block cannot be considered as "raw HTML". Like CSS-in-JS cannot be considered as pure CSS.

virtorio13 2y ago

Using <article> with the HTML 4.0 Transitional doctype? More like, I Blog with Raw Invalid HTML.

bigiain 2y ago
"html" is mostly defined in the real world as "something most browsers will render". <html><head><title>My HTML Page</title></head><body>Hello world!</body></html> Is technically "invalid", but it's "html" in the sense that everything from w3m and Netscape Navigator through to Chrome bleed will render it as intended. (About to click the [reply] button hoping the HN software doesn't screw all that markup up.)

bigiain 2y ago

I thought I was _so_ funny when I wrote this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20011102031149/http://www.mightymedia.com.au/~bigiain/ https://web.archive.org/web/20011102031149/http://www.mighty...

asukachikaru 2y ago

Irrelevant to the topic, just wanted to say hi. I have the honor to know poga during teenage with shared interest, and you have always been an inspiration to me. Seeing your post on the front page of HN is a welcoming surprise. Regarding the topic, I resonate with the concern about personal blog having to follow the convention of certain technology. Wouldn't say I enjoy reading it (or any site) without some minimal styling though.

idlewords 2y ago

I blog with raw HTML too, but I don't blog about it. The "blog about the tools I use" tarpit is somewhat unique, it's like if online chefs were obsessed with creating knife and fork recipes.

jart 2y ago
What you've never seen a chef on a cooking show geek out about his favorite knives and pans?
- graypegg 2y ago
  I think that’s misunderstanding the point they’re making. It’s not talking about knives, it’s talking about knife recipes. As in, “I use the pairing knife to cut the salmon” which is definitely similar to “I use HTML to write my blog”. Maybe if it was a unique, special pairing knife, sure. That could be a real conversation. But it’s just a normal pairing knife. You’re just announcing you make the thing, with the other thing that makes the first thing.
tptacek 2y ago
https://knifesteelnerds.com/ https://knifesteelnerds.com/

teddyrood 2y ago

I'd love to hear of static site generator tech that has a good history of stability. I too take a basic approach, where I use pandoc to generate HTML according to a template, but I'm lacking an RSS feed. That's a bit fiddly to hack up. https://dthompson.us/projects/haunt.html https://dthompson.us/projects/haunt.html looks okay.

hnbear 2y ago

> More importantly, Browsers and HTML are never deprecated. Browsers are, and HTML is on v5 and has deprecated things. And using JS definitely can be deprecated too. "Just raw HTML" is an odd statement when it's obviously not. And the if some markdown and JS are ok, why not some CSS too?

tonetheman 2y ago

[dead]

ziofill 2y ago

I’m curious, does [my blog](https://ziofil.github.io/ https://ziofil.github.io/) count as “raw html”? I do have some minor js and css, but I don’t rely on a static site generator and I do everything by hand…

jamesgeck0 2y ago

I browse with Javascript disabled by default. This blog loaded as a plain markdown file.

paulannesley 2y ago

As other comments mentioned, the content is written in Markdown and rendered in the browser. So “blog with raw HTML” feels like a stretch... that said, View Source in the browser shows the exact HTML document that's presumably hand-written in the source repo [1], so I guess it comes down to the definition of “raw”. It could mean “not pre-processed”. [1]: https://github.com/poga/devpoga.org/blob/58a202485cedeae91579dec3cb52a8dffabb9921/i-blog-with-raw-html/index.html https://github.com/poga/devpoga.org/blob/58a202485cedeae9157...

bdhcuidbebe 2y ago
> so I guess it comes down to the definition of “raw”. And the definition of ”HTML”. Document is markdown.

dankwizard 2y ago

I think OP is defining Raw HTML as an excuse to not bother with themes, style, or clever use of HTML. Just ignore the markdown and Javascript....

cookedcode 2y ago
"Of course it's raw HTML, if you ignore all the other stuff."

troad 2y ago

I don't know what I'm more offended by, the implication that writing 'raw' HTML is some noteworthy retro skill, or the fact the blog isn't actually written in raw HTML at all, but in Markdown.

sleazebreeze 2y ago
I had the same thought. 72kb of JS dependencies from some CDN to render that "raw HTML". If you are going to claim to be a purist, try actually being one first.
cookedcode 2y ago
Apparently "raw HTML" now means "just enough HTML to load a Markdown renderer into a JavaScript virtual machine". Amazing.

cadamsdotcom 2y ago

And we shall call this Rawblogging.

erwin-co 2y ago

I blog in raw machine code I don't need anything beyond the shell to echo binary values to the end of my current file. You can not beat me. I will publish at least one paragraph long blog post before the end of the month... /s

bdhcuidbebe 2y ago

I feel you op, hugo broke sites for me too. You had one job and all that… But build yourself a static site generator, its a few hours work tops. Then you have something to blog about.

inopinatus 2y ago

This is novice stuff. I write my blog by modifying the filesystem's binary structure by hand with a hex editor. There is no Javascript or CSS whatsoever and the document uses only elements, attributes, and behaviours that were both described in the original HTML v1.1 DTD and that have continued to appear in every intervening IETF, W3C, and WHATWG issuance since then. Many of the elements are therefore deprecated and currently unimplemented in all evergreen browsers. Nevertheless I live in firm expectation of their eventual reinstatement. The HTTP service is one I nicked from a grad student in my CS department circa 1995, it speaks only HTTP/0.9, and is written in a mixture of ksh and dd, requiring no other utilities. This runs on a SPARCstation 20 from the same era that has been repaired from scavenged parts so many times that the hostname spontaneously updated to "theseus" a few years ago. Fun fact: impurities in the copper I smelted to replace the power supply windings led (as you can no doubt imagine) to induction spikes on the drive rails, and the subsequent fsck erased all blog entries mentioning Jonathan Schwartz. So nothing of value was lost. Readers may be pleased to learn that despite all this I'm not totally retro; since SunOS 4.x is now out of support, the Kodiak is proudly booting NetBSD. The blog itself is, of course, optimised for viewing in Lynx. In fact it only works in Lynx

gingersnap 2y ago
https://xkcd.com/378/ https://xkcd.com/378/
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rerdavies 2y ago
Real programmers use octal not hex.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  What can I say, I modernised. It feels like an age since I last toggled in a bootloader through a front panel. I'm also anticipating a bit of snark (pun intended) from the folks still twiddling data on their magnetic drums using an iron needle. It's all in good humour though, we continue to get along because I didn't switch to SVR4.

raincole 2y ago

Really weird flex, but okay.

Woshiwuja 2y ago

[dead]

luismedel 2y ago

> with md-block for markdown, and highlight.js for syntax highlighting ...served by a simple Kubernetes cluster, I suppose? Back to the roots! /s

culi 2y ago

This is not a Raw HTML blog. You're sending markdown to the browser and then a bunch of javascript to convert that mark down into HTML...

kreetx 2y ago
That might be the reason why this has been submitted (i.e, the author doesn't know what "raw HTML" is).
immibis 2y ago
Javascript loaded from Cloudflare! What's the chances Cloudflare (current age: 14.5 years) is still around in 20 years and still providing this Javascript (current age: 30 years) file (current age: beginning of Israel's current bombing of Gaza)? And another one loaded from the website of the creator of that module! Last commit 2 years ago. Created 1 year before that. Will it continue to exist?
ssttoo 2y ago
Ha! I just did exactly this as a joke [1]. Even using the default Apache’s directory listing page to give me the list of articles [1] https://lizzy.js.org https://lizzy.js.org

sodimel 2y ago

Hey, I blog with raw TXT! https://misc.l3m.in/txt/raw_txt.txt https://misc.l3m.in/txt/raw_txt.txt

user432678 2y ago
I was surprised how good txt works on mobile with reader mode!
vaylian 2y ago
Existing discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42997896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42997896

bilekas 2y ago

I get the impression this is a bit of a meme... "Raw. But cooked" At the very least the discussion here is popcorn worthy.

globular-toast 2y ago

I used to blog with raw html. In 1999 when I was 12. It sucked. There is a reason why we use things like markdown now. Still, you kids should definitely dig into the fundamentals at least one time and write raw html. Just don't stay there and pretend it's somehow better for you.

cookedcode 2y ago
Lots of things suck when you're 12. Speak for yourself, though, HTML really isn't that difficult.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  Didn't say it was difficult. Doing the dishes isn't difficult, but it still sucks.

Elfener 2y ago

I see markdown for a second every time I load this page; if you say "raw html" at least convert from markdown on the server!

Popeyes 2y ago

As others mention its not raw HTML, but also the browser is applying styles of it's own - you can't get away from that. Isn't that reason we have CSSS resets so we have a baseline starting point that other browsers have forced upon us. How long ago were the default CSS rules set for a browser. They should probably change.

Pooge 2y ago

Reader mode isn't available. Why?

vaylian 2y ago
The page doesn't use the "right" HTML tags: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47822691/how-do-you-create-a-web-page-for-reader-mode https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47822691/how-do-you-crea...
aembleton 2y ago
Probably because there isn't enough 'raw' HTML. Its largely markdown thats converted by JS on your browser.

dzek69 2y ago

Is this a parody of something? "raw html" that does not work without JS (I mean literally, links are not links without JS), but on the other hand looks ugly even if 10 lines of CSS would make it look nice

mattstir 2y ago
Could you elaborate on "links are not links without JS"?
- rchaud 2y ago
  If you turn Javascript off, the Markdown-formatted text will not display as a clickable link, but like "[hugo](https://gohugo.io/ https://gohugo.io/)". You would need to copy and paste the link into a browser address bar to navigate there instead of just clicking the link.

cookedcode 2y ago

Lmao no you don't, you use a little HTML to load JavaScript to render Markdown. Here's how you write a blog with raw HTML: 1. Write some HTML to a file. (No loading third-party JavaScript.) 2. Host that file. That's it, that's the whole thing.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tannhaeuser 2y ago

To those taking issue with the "raw" HTML claim when the author actually writes markdown syntax and converts it to HTML: SGML, on which HTML is based and which is originally understood to supply the authoring features HTML itself is lacking, has the SHORTREF capability [1] which can map custom tokens into markup and thus implement a large portion of markdown in pure SGML, if still not "raw" HTML. [1]: https://sgmljs.net/docs/sgmlrefman.html#short-references https://sgmljs.net/docs/sgmlrefman.html#short-references

rssoconnor 2y ago

I literally blog with raw SGML. Each post comes with a handful per post ENTITYs for that post's common abbreviations and links. Unlike inopinatus's comment, I do keep up with "modern" standards, which is why my posts conform to the "ISO/IEC 15445:2000//DTD HyperText Markup Language//EN" doctype, the latest HTML standard approved by the ISO. Blog content is assembled via various SGML entities includes into a prehtml file of "-//ISO-HTML User's Guide//DTD ISO-HTML Preparation//EN" doctype per ISO 15445:2000 recommendations[0]. This is all processed with osgmlnorm through a somewhat simple Makefile to generate the resulting HTML files. [0] https://rogerprice.org/15445/UG.html#DOCPREP https://rogerprice.org/15445/UG.html#DOCPREP

AlienRobot 2y ago
I don't know what kind of competition this is, but I'm waiting for someone to say they blog in XML with XSLT.
- layer8 2y ago
  That’s less impressive than SGML.
- jasonkester 2y ago
  As requested: http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml The upside is that the entire html page is content. I defy google to not figure out what to index here: view-source:http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml http://www.blogabond.com/xsl/vistacular.xml The downside is everything else about the experience.
  - lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
    This is blowing my mind. That's really cool.
ttepasse 2y ago
You know, I am so happy that one other person on earth knows this HTML dialect.

skapadia 2y ago

I blog with stone tablets.

reassess_blind 2y ago

Why are there so many of these exact kind of posts lately? I swear I’ve seen 10 posts in the last month with some variation on “I use less technology to do X than the next guy”. It might be noteworthy if the author had an interesting problem to tackle, previously used a convoluted stack to accomplish it but then stripped it down to basics - but no, this is just “I wrote HTML to make a website”. I’d rather read “I used a hammer to hit a nail”.