Comment

Comment on No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites

HTML 2.0 doesn’t have tables, and tables are not so bad, even org-mode has tables.

Since HTML 4.01 was a thing when I first saw a website:

Being able to have buttons is good. Buttons with pictures too.

And, unlike some people, I liked the idea of framesets. A simple enough websites could have an IRC-like chat frame to the left and the main navigable area to the right.

And the unholy amount of specific tags is the other side of the coin for not yet using JS and CSS for everything.

I think an “RHTML” standard as a continuation and maybe simplification of HTML 4.01 (no JS, no CSS, do dynamic things in applets, without Netscape plugins do applets with some new kind of plugins running in a specialized sandboxed VM with JIT) could be useful. Other than this there’s no need in any change at all. It’s perfect. It has all the necessary things for hypertext.

source

Sort:hotnew top

yeah@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I loved frames 🥹

source
- kazerniel@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I hated frames, but I do have a tiny bit of nostalgia for them because I started web design in the early '00s when they were all the craze :D
  
  And the iframes took up like 1/4 of the screen while the rest were large brush swoops and other graphical elements 🥹
  
  And the tiny navigation buttons without any text that you had to figure out from the hovered URL.
  
  Ah I it was all so fucking unusable, but pretty xD
  
  source
  - yeah@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Haha! Forgot about navigation being a puzzle. Funsies.
    
    source