In a perfect world, these would be decided not server-side, but client-side by choices made by the browser users.
But our world is not perfect.
Comment on No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites
b_tr3e@feddit.org 23 hours agoOh, come on. You really want some at least readable output. Things like image borders, consistently positioned images/diagrams, line breaks and page borders. Some whitespace and indentations, too. You just can’t read a couple of pages full of unformatted raw text without massive eye fatigue. I’m all for dumping JS and excessive frameworks, I’d prefer well-formed XHTML over any of that clients-side scripted crap, but totally rejecting CSS is pointless zealotry.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
HTML but no-CSS has defaults though.
Can you read books
b_tr3e@feddit.org 21 hours ago
Yes , I can read books. I even read one or two of the 1200 around me. Those with the fuckpics and some of the funnier ones, like “Phyänomenologie des Geistes” by Hegel. I wouldn’t have if they had been layouted using browser standards.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
They’re not standards, it’s just default styles, which you can change.
b_tr3e@feddit.org 17 hours ago
That’s not even convincing pedantery. Nobody would assune that a browser’s standard style might be an RFC, IETF- or in any way official standard,
JackbyDev@programming.dev 22 hours ago
Why do you think I’m advocating for getting rid of CSS and not being silly?
b_tr3e@feddit.org 21 hours ago
I don’t think. You can’t prove I do! Leave me alone. You’re one of them! I knew it all the time.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
Some people haven’t lived through the time when HTML layout was done through nested tables, and it shows.