HTML? More like ACHE-TML!

Where did it go wrong? Why has such a simple mark-up language turn into the bloated, over-compensation it is today? What do you turn to? XML? CSS? XHTML? PHP? CGI? ASP? SQL? PERL? HEX? BINARY? ELECTRICAL PULSES? INFARED? TWO CUPS ON A STRING?

text/plain

WHEN MICROSOFT ENTERED THE MIX

The blink and marquee tags are the internet.

ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER!

When W3C got their hands on it

Where did it go wrong?
<HTML...
^ right there.

>>1
it started going wrong with 'dhtml', when people decided that webpages had to be flashy and pretty and featureful. so mostly it's javascript's fault. after that first fall tho, the second biggest fall since then was flash.

and where to go now? gopher

HTML failed when people realized they could use tables for layout.  Possibly also when the first WYSIWYG editors appeared.

>>2 for everywhere it applies. For example, an electronic book: no PDF bullshit.

>>7 is right. <shit>...</shit> sucks. I'd rather have $tagname{ ... }.

>>8
JavaScript has amazing uses, but it's misused 99% of the times. See GMail. See n00b statusbar scrollprint.
Flash has good uses, but it's misused 99.999999% of the times. See Google Video (fuck shitty streaming plugins, fuck shitty players, fuck their configuration, and fuck their lame compatibility). See anything else.

>>9
Tables for layout are not bad. The other choices are one or more of: butt ugly, harder to maintain, more complicated, less compatible, not dynamically adjusted.

WYSIWYG editors are for n00bs and "professional" webmasters. Anybody with a brain writes HTML by hand.

HTML has an unpythonic syntax. I'd recommend:

table:
    row:
        column:
            Hello __bold__('''world!''')
        column:
            etc

>> >>7 is right. <shit>...</shit> sucks. I'd rather have $tagname{ ... }.
Whats wrong with <shit> .. </shit> to generate a layout?

>>10
Tables for layout are not bad.

TABLES ARE FOR TABULAR DATA, SHITHEAD. IF YOU CAN'T DO CSS, YOU'RE TO STUPID TO MAKE WEBPAGES.

>>12
Unnecessarily verbose (something that was pretty important especially back when everybody was surfing with a 56 Kbps modem connected at 40…48 Kbps) and pretty annoying to type.

>>13
I've read the full CSS2 specification and can even stroke my penis with it, dumbass. And yet, pure CSS2 layouts have their inconveniences too, so I usually do the overall layout with tables.

>>10
Tables for layout are not bad. The other choices are one or more of: butt ugly, harder to maintain, more complicated, less compatible, not dynamically adjusted.

I change my mind.  HTML failed when some "creative" guy wanted to make a layout.  HTML is for hyperlinked documents, not so-called "web sights."

>>15
I'd rather have HTML as a general-purpose hypertext, rich document, custom client-relative layout document format. Why restricting it to simple hypertext when you can have all three and ditch PDF in the process?

>>14
if you find tableless layouts too complicated then please gtfo. the internet doesn't need more of you. >=/

Goddammit. CSS was invented to separate content from presentation. Table layouts violate that. There are many reasons why that's bad (mostly related to maintainability and user experience).

(mostly related to maintainability and user experience).

STANDARDS COMPLIANT ENTERPRISE READY SOLUTIONS FOR YOUR EPENIS!!!

CSS is fucked thanks to IE.

There are not words to describe how I loathe that POS. It made CSS layout about as fun as ripping off my fingernails.

Just don't build web sites then, it's the lamest thing you can spend your life worrying about.

HTML 3.2 messed it up, which is mostly IE's fault if I remember correctly, because it supports the FONT and MARQUEE tags, and other faggotry. And then they did it differently from Netscape just to complicate everyone's lives.

HTML WAS DESIGNED FOR OS INDEPENDANT AND BROWSER INDEPENDANT WAY OF HYPERLINKING DOCUMENTS USING THE INTERNET. IT ONLY STARTED FAILING DURING THE HTML3-4 ERA WHEN PEOPLE STARTED DEMANDING FORMATTING TAGS THAT BLOATED UP THE SPECS. IT WAS FIXED AGAIN WHEN CSS CAME TO THE SCENE. of course, css2 does have it's failings but overall, it is a huge improvement over the 1995-1999
ENTERPRISE READY WEB SOLUTIONS.

>>18
Of course, and we should always use STRONG instead of B and EM instead of I, it's all about semantics. You know what? Fuck that. Here's the fastest, most functional and most compatible site of the web: http://www.google.com Now go see the HTML sauce. zOMG it's not best practices Web 2.0 standards compilant scalable professional XML-based enterprise ready solution!

>>20
Yeah, I fucking hate MSIE. That's the reason why pure CSS does not work unless you're a bad enough guy to tell the MSIE lamers to GTFO your web sight. I'd do that, but I'm paid not to.

>>23
Google uses junky HTML

You are welcome to write a page that works in all browsers using whatever junky code you want.  In the meantime, while you are trying to debug what has gone wrong in 25 out of the 300 browsers you test for, I am writing 20000 standards-based scalable enterprise best practises pages per second that work in all browsers that support HTML 4.01.

>>24
<falsetto><high-pitch>IN THE YEAR 20000</high-pitch><br><higher-pitch>IN THE YEAR 20000</higher-pitch></falsetto>

>>25
<falsetto><high-pitch>

STOP USING PRESENTATIONAL ELEMENTS, DAMMIT!

Web semantics *fap* *fap*
Separation of structure and presentation *fap* *fap*

Whoever said "Separation of structure and presentation", I would like to say THANK YOU AND I FUCKING LOVE THE WAY YOU THINK! Yes, only true web programmers can truly appreciate are really the things and features that go on "in the background." Really, I think a site is good if they know their CGI capabilities/PHP/Perl/XML/*HTML and if the sire can validate with W3C.

>>28


it's funny that you think validated html matters

>>28
Valid HTML *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* oh my god *come*

>>29
even funnier if you're the table idiot "omg my css doesn't work. valid html fuck that. TABLES *FAP *FAP *FAP"

>>31
More like OMG, my CSS does not work in the browser retards use; because of the high proportion of retards out there I'll have to workaround it.

>>32
fukken signed!

y'know, all this 'structure and presentation' bullshit was one of the major things that led html to go wrong anyway. it used to be that you just wrote your little html document and then let whatever browser display it however the hell it wanted to. now people all try to use css to specify exactly where each fucking pixel on the screen should go which leads to no end of problems because of browser incompatibilities and varying levels of stupidity of web designers/users. introducing the stupid structure/presentation split more than doubled the complexity of the web and thus more than doubled the number of associated problems.

>>34
STFU. CSS allows for posistioning and customization of objects, id, classes, and other elements in a generated HTML page. Yes, one can simply write a quick HTML file, but it looks shitty as hell, which is why CSS is there; to make it 'better'.
HTML has been around for quite some time. New web browsers have come up over time to solve certain problems and add more features; older browsers have also updated to do the same thing. Problem is, IE (yes, I said it) refuses to comply with what has become stnadard among web designers: CSS2 (and soon, 3).

CSS 1,2,3 is too fucking much to remember.

>>35
CSS 3 not anytime soon, thanks to Microsoft and its shitty broken browser.

>>36
You fail, they're easy; at least if you leave the esoteric aural shtuff.

>>34
now people all try to use css to specify exactly where each fucking pixel on the screen should go

Blame that on stupid web designers, not CSS. CSS doesn't hold a gun to your head and force you to use pixel-based positioning and sizes.

>>36

PROTIP: You don't need to know every fucking little detail of CSS to use it. The subset of it that you'll *actually use* is easy to fit in your head.

I learnt CSS2 by just reading the specification, and know all sort of fucking little details and quirks of it. Am I hardcore enough?

BTW, pixel positioning usually fails. Centimeters and shit fail too because nobody gives a damn and everybody's centimeters are wrongly measured, and it's paper shit not suitable for web sights.

All web sights should be relative to em|en|ex and %, expand to the whole width of your browser window, etc.

Your backend should produce data in some kind of XML format, then you XSLT-ize it into XHTML/HTML/whatever else you want (PDF, etc) = easy to mantain.

>>40
Yeah, that'd be the enterprise-ready scalable Web 2.0 solution. You forgot AJAX BTW.

vi is all you need to manage a website

>>42
Agree on the concept (a text editor is all you need to develop software, documents, web sites, and maintain them; if you need anything else you're doing it wrong/using the wrong technologies), but not on the editor of choice.

why use vi when you can just write the binary code directly on the hard drive using a refrigerator magnet? If you're using a text editor, you're doing it wrong

>>44
vi is a line editor, not a text editor.  And vi sucks, use ed.

>>42

No, nano FTW. Bitch.

>>32
Signed!

Vim uber alles.

An vi is okay too.

Hey, >>48, guess what? vi is a symlink to vim, dumbass.

nvi > * > emacs > vim

>>50
I don't know about nvi, but I'll singn it.

>>49

Only on systems with vim.

PS: Dumbass.

>>40

Or you could just use <font> tags.

>>54
you could do that but css was designed to replace the need for font tags

PDF sucks sure there's an ebuild for PDF but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.

I just ordered another copy of SICP

ur gay

beware the army of 12 year old autistics

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

standards

Do they monitor two cups on a string? No? Well, that's your answer right there.