HN's HTML Is Invalid(validator.w3.org) |
HN's HTML Is Invalid(validator.w3.org) |
It does for me. Also, the validator shows 10 warnings and 30 info messages for https://www.w3.org/.
One rule is duplicated (a:visited) where it seems it should refer to a specific class (.hnmore a:visited):
a:link { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; }
a:visited { color:#828282; text-decoration:none; }
...
.subtext a:link, .subtext a:visited { color:#828282; }
.subtext a:hover { text-decoration:underline; }
.comhead a:link, .subtext a:visited { color:#828282; }
.comhead a:hover { text-decoration:underline; }
.hnmore a:link, a:visited { color:#828282; }
.hnmore { text-decoration:underline; }
The single-pixel gif as a spacer, that takes my mind back to Geocities.
Sums up software pretty well. If it works, move on to the next thing. No need to get lost in the details that a tiny handful of people see.
But "<center>" is depreciated now? Come on.
"Width" and "height" attributes too? To what purpose? They are clear, easy to use, and apparently still widely supported with no issue.
And yet to see a browser that actually cares about DOCTYPE...usually its pretty obvious when the next line is <html>
Edit: I seem to be mistaken about the importance of doctype for some situations.
How do browsers determine which mode to use?
For HTML documents, browsers use a DOCTYPE in the beginning of the document to decide whether to handle it in quirks mode or standards mode.
The DOCTYPE shown in the example, <!DOCTYPE html>, is the simplest possible, and the one recommended by current HTML standards. Earlier versions of the HTML standard recommended other variants, but all existing browsers today will use full standards mode for this DOCTYPE, even the dated Internet Explorer 6. There are no valid reasons to use a more complicated DOCTYPE. If you do use another DOCTYPE, you may risk choosing one which triggers almost standards mode or quirks mode.
Make sure you put the DOCTYPE right at the beginning of your HTML document. Anything before the DOCTYPE, like a comment or an XML declaration will trigger quirks mode in Internet Explorer 9 and older.
The only purpose of <!DOCTYPE html> is to activate no-quirks mode. Older versions of HTML standard DOCTYPEs provided additional meaning, but no browser ever used the DOCTYPE for anything other than switching between render modes.
My point was its silly because the html self-defines being html the second you open the <html> tag, because what else could it even be?
I just wish the Tailwind community (and those from other big-ass CSS frameworks) would internalize this concept. It feels so unintuitive to have your compiled HTML just element after element of class="lg:block fixed inset-0 top-[3.8125rem] drop-shadow-md justify-center hunter2-blue overflow-hidden pointer-events-none"
...especially when elements like <p> have the exact same giant class definition throughout an entire page.
If a web page does not have the correct doctype, browsers run it in quirks mode instead of standards mode. If a web developer is fine with their websites running in quirks mode, they are not a good web developer, and you should probably stay away from them.
The cellpadding [0] and cellspacing [1] attributes are still supported but deprecated. I'm impressed by the usage numbers, though. I do not believe this will be removed from browsers anytime soon, but that's just my opinion.
[0]: https://caniuse.com/mdn-html_elements_table_cellpadding
[1]: https://caniuse.com/mdn-html_elements_table_cellspacing
It has been a minute since that constraint applied, yeah.
<element this=“that”in=“out”/>
Part of Netscape’s competitive advantage back in the day was that it handled broken HTML in an undocumented way and broken HTML is so common that a browser that doesn’t handle broken HTML the same way is a broken browser. One of the many great things in HTML is that it defines that behavior.
It would be a fun project to CSS-ize the HN front page with an aim to minimizing size.
This is still true. Browsers run HN in quirks mode. Just open the devtools console in Firefox, and it will tell you.
Fixing them would be trivial.
"Yeah but it works" is not engineering.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...
i mean the garbage that gets churned out by react and node generators these days is barely even html.
Since everything in web technology is circular he is just waiting for the page to become compliant again. It'll look impressive on the Internet Archive, so far ahead of its times! And with no effort whatsoever. This also applies to the visual style.
If you need tables, render in a fixed width font.
HTML in email sucks in many more ways than are described here...
Seriously, if I want to send you the pictures from the beach I can do it with an attachment.
Plaintext works, but as the great David Bowie said: “If it works, it’s out of date.”
If you don't care your site potentially becomes unusable broken shit outside of the specific browser you develop it on, there's no real use.
That said, HN works fine.
But also, using Tables for page layout had less to do with box layout problems and more to do with the lack of something like CSS Grid (finally, decades later). Tables let you define regular grids in a way that was closer to designing a grid (thinking in terms of spans across cells instead of widths/margins). Tables for layout didn't truly go away until around the Bootstrap era with its column grid helpers (and their complex CSS math to make that work before both flexbox and native CSS Grid).
I love Firefox to this day, but mathematically the choices that box model made made sense as easier on the renderer but was awful to work with for the web developer.
It's great that we have the choice between box models today and their behavior is better standardized. I know if you surveyed CSS in the wild you'd find most CSS is written for the IE box model (border-box) and yet it is funny that that is the one you have to opt-in to because that adds to the overall impression that CSS by default is broken and needs reset stylesheets and boilerplate.
And for that purpose, it's still the best option.
HN dates from the period I described and still uses tables for general page layout, hence the original commenter's query to which I replied.
According to Wiki HN dates from 2007. I think Yahoo moved from table to CSS layout earlier. CSS Zen Garden is from around 2003.