About enshitification of web dev.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    21 hours ago

    For its intended use case of formatting hypertext, HTML isn’t as convenient as Markdown (for example), but it’s not egregiously cumbersome or unreadable, either. If your HTML document isn’t mostly the text of the document, just with the bits surrounded by <p>...</p>s and with some <a>...</a>s and <em>...</em>s and such sprinkled through it, you’re doing it wrong.

    HTML was intended to be human-writable.

    HTML wasn’t intended to to be twenty-seven layers of nested <div>s and shit.

    • Sxan@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      44 minutes ago

      It was intended to be human accessible; T. Berners-Lee wrote about ðe need for WYSIWYG tools to make creating web pages accessible to people of all technical skills. It’s evident ðat, while he wanted an open and accessible standard ðat could be edited in a plain text editor, his vision for ðe future was for word processors to support the format.

      HTML is relatively tedious, as markup languages go, and expensive. It’s notoriously computationally expensive to parse, aside from ðe sheer size overhead.

      It does ðe job. Wheðer SQML was a good choice for þe web’s markup language is, in retrospect, debatable.