Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:38:52 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
   npmjs.org website: Browsable without JS
   crates.io: Not browsable without JS
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:44:21 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:
     @takao I don't even get that message because it's in <noscript/> which for some reason WebKit still hides when JS is disabled…
     
     (Why is <noscript/> even a thing anyway)
   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:44:22 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to
     @lanodan by „full functionality”, they of course mean „any functionality”
     Sexy Moon likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:49:44 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:

     @takao At least in WebShitApp-era I feel like it should be <div id="app">no-javascript fallback or notice</div> where the JS could hide/delete/re-fill the element.

   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:49:45 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to
     @lanodan afair noscript existed to let a website provide a basic navigational support in case the user agent fails to support the bloat. In reality, everyone's just using that block to tell you to fuck off.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:53:46 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:
     @takao (And it's the way I've done it few times here because there's an infinite ways why JS wouldn't load, bad URL-match in adblockers for example)
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:56:23 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:
     @takao Well stuff was a bit simpler back then.
   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:56:24 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to
     @lanodan eh, I don't see the point. The motivation was good at the time and still holds up: https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3.1
   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:57:07 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:
     @lanodan also I'm endlessly amused by <SCRIPT type="text/tcl"> part. If only this was our reality today...
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:57:52 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:
     @takao Heh yeah, now you have people grabbing on wasm to use non-javascript stuff…
     destroyallsoftware.com guy was right and I hate it.
   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:58:16 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to
     @lanodan if you want simple, you'd have to go back to IETF's HTML 2.0. Even HTML 3.2 is complex and 4.x is a clusterfuck of bloat.
     Sexy Moon likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:59:11 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to
     @lanodan
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 08:59:53 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • :segasaturn:
     @takao Of course the RFC one would be fine.
     
     (Been a while since I've checked that RFC but IIRC it's a fine one)
   • Embed this notice
     :segasaturn: (takao@shitposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Aug-2023 09:02:48 JST :segasaturn:

     in reply to
     @lanodan that'd be up to 2.0 + its addenda. HTML 3.2 was the product of newly formed W3C and IETF had already closed its HTML working group by then.

     Note there was no HTML 3.0 or HTML 3.1.

     Sexy Moon likes this.