3 ms·
Yes. But isn't HTML itself the flashy & pretty (and often non-value-added) alternative to plaintext, the functional & ugly interface? Why not just use plainte
by arh68 12y ago
Yes. But isn't HTML itself the flashy & pretty (and often non-value-added) alternative to plaintext, the functional & ugly interface? Why not just use plaintext, wrap everything in <pre></pre>, and call the Web a fad?
I'm all for simplicity, I just wonder what's considered taking it too far.
- angersock 12y agoHTML allows for creating hypermedia documents, which plain text does not. In small, reasonable amounts, it provides functionality not easily reproducable with a plain-text interface while still being reasonable. Stacking on lots and lots of other stuff, though, is when it becomes silly.
- arh68 12y agoTrue, true. Hyperlinks are pretty big. Defining links with a new language is certainly one way to do it. But look here on HN, what do I do? I write plaintext. I certainly don't write <a href>. I write like this [1], and the hyperlink becomes an implementation detail. An HTML implementation detail, haha, sure, but nowadays it's not hard for hyperlinks to be emulated. Anyhow I honestly do think html5 is a great language. (but so is text! :) [1] http://google.com/ http://google.com/
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Yes. But isn't HTML itself the flashy & pretty (and often non-value-added) alternative to plaintext, the functional & ugly interface? No, HTML's improvement over plaintext isn't cosmetic, its functional. (E.g., automatically traversable hyperlinks.)