3 ms·
In my mind, the part that is most likely to fail is "return an HTML document that still contains the following text." Nowadays, more and more "HTML documents" d
by ludwik 2mo ago
In my mind, the part that is most likely to fail is "return an HTML document that still contains the following text." Nowadays, more and more "HTML documents" do not contain any content at all, just some JavaScript that is responsible for then fetching and displaying the content.
- bombcar 2mo agoI used to be someone, man, I was a dreamer, a programmer, a man! Now I'm a human slave copying text from web browsers to chat windows to get around JS rendering bullshit.
- someguyiguess 2mo agoOne of those things is true
- andai 2mo agoThe preferred term is meat proxy ;)
- TeMPOraL 2mo agoThat depends on which side of the JS rendering bullshit you're sitting. If you're on the serving side, yes. But I do the same as GP, just on the receiving side. That is, reaching out for help to baby eldritch entity, because that's healthier for my mind than dealing directly with the unspeakable horrors that half the websites are today. The industry has lost its collective mind in pursue of profit and control, and that was long before the thousand-mask wearing shoggoths became our daily consorts.
- andai 2mo agoI like your funny words, magic man.
- TeMPOraL 2mo agoYou two have just spelled out a very specific bet. Care to put a wager on it? :)
- munch117 2mo agoIf the text was returned using a staged process, whereby the server first returns an instruction (JavaScript), and the web browser then executes that instruction, which is what transfers the text, then that doesn't actually change anything. Those are just technical details of the transfer. You are viewing an HTML document on-screen; it makes no difference to this bet if it was returned to you by a different mechanism than originally conceived, since the bet doesn't specify any transfer mechanism, just that the URL was entered into a browser.
- JoshTriplett 2mo ago> or command line tool (like curl) Even if you interpreted the bet generously to allow for a browser to render the content using JavaScript, if I understand the bet correctly, the condition of working with a command-line tool like curl would fail.
- lelandfe 2mo agoThat's a secondary ("OR") condition, used if the browser condition isn't satisfied.
- munch117 2mo agoI read the or's as giving alternatives, only one of which needs to work. I can see how other interpretations are possible, but I don't see anything especially generous about mine. I'm not "allowing" anything: To make a judgement you have to pick a web browser to try it with, and you'd probably pick the most popular one, in the most popular configuration, that seems the most fair. If that web browser happens to execute Javascript when you navigate to an URL, then that's just how it is.
- JoshTriplett 2mo agoIt says that the browser must download "an HTML document that still contains the following text". I can see how either interpretation could work, but I would interpret "contains" as "the text is in the HTML document", not "rendering the HTML document in a JavaScript-capable browser displays the text". (Though, that said, some approaches to rendering sites via JavaScript would still have that text in the initially downloaded HTML file as JavaScript data.) As for the "or", I read it as "doing either X or Y must", not "either X must or Y must (not necessarily both)", but yeah, I can see either interpretation being valid.