No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites
-
"No HTML club" is kinda going too far on the Web. If you go there you might as well start a No HTTP Club and serve stuff over Gopher and FTP.
But we definitely need an HTML 2.0 Club.
Might as well do
no digital cluband we exchange information through mail and pigeons. -
Character, space, space, space, space, space, space, space, character, space, space, space, space, space, space, space, space, space, character, ENTER.
Just like your grandpappy used to do.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Gotta use if you dont want the browser to collapse all those spaces for you.
Edit: lol. The damn thing just rendered my whitespace code.
-
"No HTML club" is kinda going too far on the Web. If you go there you might as well start a No HTTP Club and serve stuff over Gopher and FTP.
But we definitely need an HTML 2.0 Club.
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.
-
Jesus. This is getting out of hand.
wrote last edited by [email protected]We can go further. We could take away your fancy "URL"s and just use IP addresses for navigation.
Heck, we could do away with TCP/IP altogether and network over serial. It's a perfectly functional protocol with several baud rates to choose from. I like ol' reliable 9600, but I sometimes dabble in 115200 when I'm feeling adventurous.
-
Might as well do
no digital cluband we exchange information through mail and pigeons.Too much information.
Back to smoke signals.Wait. You know what? Back to monke!
-
no http club, who is joining?
I did using Gemini (the protocol, not Google's thing) and Gopher.
-
How do you use hyperlinks without HTML?
If you want to know copy and paste this link into your browser: text.only
-
The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don't use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that's been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you're not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!
The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you're not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you're a bad person.
A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.
I also like the idea of implementing "hypotext" as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I'm in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.
Republished Under Creative Commons Terms.
Boing Boing Original Article.Pfff, that's nothing. My club doesn't even have a website.
-
Then your life choices should be of more concern then centering a div.
then
Edit: to be clear, it should be "than".
-
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.
I loved frames 🥹
-
CSS on the other hand is quite essential to separate layout from content. Which is a good thing, so I can't really think of a reason for a "no-CSS" rule. Specifically if you can use inline styles as well but in a way more messy way.
I think the idea is that you keep the layout as simple as possible such that you don't need any code for it, css or otherwise.
-
Jesus. This is getting out of hand.
Forces one to avoid deep links and parameter crap. I'm sorta two minds about this.
-
The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don't use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that's been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you're not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!
The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you're not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you're a bad person.
A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.
I also like the idea of implementing "hypotext" as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I'm in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.
Republished Under Creative Commons Terms.
Boing Boing Original Article.wrote last edited by [email protected]No HTML should rather do all-Commonmark instead, imo. Background color and text width & stuff should not be your (the creators) business but my (the users) business only. But some basic styling is nice.
-
This is genuinely inspiring to me, may be my new ADHD hobby for the next couple of weeks.
I just talked to a friend a couple days ago, we'll take a weekend off, do a hackaton to rebuild our sites in this style. Dithering the images looks really cool, I'd like to do his as well.
-
Just earlier I was reading about this website hosted on solar power and the extremes they went through to get the website to be simple so very little data is transmitted to save precious watts.
The website https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/
Plug for my astro plugin which dithers images and achieves the same look and feel as the linked website: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@bashbers/astro-image-dithering
-
Too much information.
Back to smoke signals.Wait. You know what? Back to monke!
It was a mistake to leave the oceans in the first place.
-
We can go further. We could take away your fancy "URL"s and just use IP addresses for navigation.
Heck, we could do away with TCP/IP altogether and network over serial. It's a perfectly functional protocol with several baud rates to choose from. I like ol' reliable 9600, but I sometimes dabble in 115200 when I'm feeling adventurous.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Back in school my friends all flashed their mcus with 4-8MB images over serial with 115200 baud. I set up ota updates over wifi. They were all fascinated by my speedy flashes. However when I offered to help them set it up, not one was interested because their setup was working as is and slow flashing is not a "bad" thing since it gave them an excuse to do other things.
We are talking minutes vs seconds here.
The teachers were surprised by my quick progress and iterations. When I told them my "trick" the gave me bonus points but also were not interested in learning how to do ota which was very easy. A simple 20 minute first time setup would have saved sooo much time during the year.
-
No HTML should rather do all-Commonmark instead, imo. Background color and text width & stuff should not be your (the creators) business but my (the users) business only. But some basic styling is nice.
wrote last edited by [email protected]i guess Commonmark is the same thing as Markdown?
in that case, this is why i love the fediverse (especially lemmy) so much: comments and posts are simple markdown.
it comes quite close to the principle of distributing content in the way of markdown articles.
-
CSS on the other hand is quite essential to separate layout from content. Which is a good thing, so I can't really think of a reason for a "no-CSS" rule. Specifically if you can use inline styles as well but in a way more messy way.
Separate you layout from content so hard that you have no opinions about the layout.
-
It was a mistake to leave the oceans in the first place.
in my next life, i'm gonna be an insect critter hopping in the grassy meadows i guess
