Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
Hey, On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy mn...@port70.net wrote: This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web markup as *minimalist* as possible (e.g. no closing tags, no quotes where you can skip them, no CSS, no JS, the simplest =HTML4 formatting). This will make your page work on all browsers forever, and as a bonus, make it easily processible with external tools (and the user can still specify any kind of custom style they want). Websites like this are extremely difficult to parse. Is this p the end of a paragraph or the beginning? Let's test both! In making your HTML not at least resemblant of XML (that is, all tags close) you aren't making things simpler, you're just producing more complexity elsewhere. I'm not even sure how fewer characters equates as simpler: LOC is only an approximation of how suckless our code is. When given a trade-off between two simple lines or one complex one, write two. A paragraph makes sense as ptext/p: it opens, it closes. Quotes are nice too. I'm not saying it should validate as XHTML, but simplicity is more profound than wc. You may say that, yes, all modern browsers can parse fucked-up HTML. But what if we at Suckless were to attempt to write an HTML parser (oh god) like htmlfmt? It would help quite a lot if we had fewer demented websites out there. Be kind to your fellow hackers: make simple websites, not ones which skimp on characters in the name of quirks mode. cls
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote: Hey, On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy mn...@port70.net wrote: This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web markup as *minimalist* as possible (e.g. no closing tags, no quotes where you can skip them, no CSS, no JS, the simplest =HTML4 formatting). This will make your page work on all browsers forever, and as a bonus, make it easily processible with external tools (and the user can still specify any kind of custom style they want). Websites like this are extremely difficult to parse. Is this p the end of a paragraph or the beginning? Let's test both! In making your HTML not at least resemblant of XML (that is, all tags close) you aren't making things simpler, you're just producing more complexity elsewhere. I'm not even sure how fewer characters equates as simpler: LOC is only an approximation of how suckless our code is. When given a trade-off between two simple lines or one complex one, write two. A paragraph makes sense as ptext/p: it opens, it closes. Quotes are nice too. I'm not saying it should validate as XHTML, but simplicity is more profound than wc. You may say that, yes, all modern browsers can parse fucked-up HTML. But what if we at Suckless were to attempt to write an HTML parser (oh god) like htmlfmt? It would help quite a lot if we had fewer demented websites out there. Be kind to your fellow hackers: make simple websites, not ones which skimp on characters in the name of quirks mode. cls I completely agree.
Re: [dev] Re: sprop: simple xprop replacement
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 02:18:49AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 5 April 2010 02:08, Connor Lane Smith c...@lubutu.com wrote: Mostly for fun, here's a simple replacement for xprop. A slightly improved version. (Sorry for the spam, I'm a perfectionist.) cls Thanks for this, Connor. Now for a replacement for X.org. ;) -- I am a man who does not exist for others. pgp77TeWBH51N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On 04/05/2010 03:33 AM, Nibble wrote: As for HTML, don't usediv class=header. Useheader. Same goes fordiv id=footer Instead ofdiv id=\side-bar\, usemenu Is it just a aesthetic issue? No it's HTML5.
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages faster was totally bunk). Which is one of the many reasons why XHTML is (thankfully) dead with HTML5 (yes, you can write XHTML5, but nobody does it, and nobody should). uriel On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Connor Lane Smith c...@lubutu.com wrote: Hey, On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy mn...@port70.net wrote: This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web markup as *minimalist* as possible (e.g. no closing tags, no quotes where you can skip them, no CSS, no JS, the simplest =HTML4 formatting). This will make your page work on all browsers forever, and as a bonus, make it easily processible with external tools (and the user can still specify any kind of custom style they want). Websites like this are extremely difficult to parse. Is this p the end of a paragraph or the beginning? Let's test both! In making your HTML not at least resemblant of XML (that is, all tags close) you aren't making things simpler, you're just producing more complexity elsewhere. I'm not even sure how fewer characters equates as simpler: LOC is only an approximation of how suckless our code is. When given a trade-off between two simple lines or one complex one, write two. A paragraph makes sense as ptext/p: it opens, it closes. Quotes are nice too. I'm not saying it should validate as XHTML, but simplicity is more profound than wc. You may say that, yes, all modern browsers can parse fucked-up HTML. But what if we at Suckless were to attempt to write an HTML parser (oh god) like htmlfmt? It would help quite a lot if we had fewer demented websites out there. Be kind to your fellow hackers: make simple websites, not ones which skimp on characters in the name of quirks mode. cls
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel lost.gob...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages faster was totally bunk). My point was not that we should write XHTML, but that we should write simple HTML, and that simple does not solely mean fewer characters. (Nor does it solely mean efficiency. I have a dog on my shelf telling me: simplicity, clarity, generality.) I was considering from the point of view of the author of a new, say, htmlfmt. To quote, On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Connor Lane Smith c...@lubutu.com wrote: I'm not even sure how fewer characters equates as simpler: LOC is only an approximation of how suckless our code is. When given a trade-off between two simple lines or one complex one, write two. A paragraph makes sense as ptext/p: it opens, it closes. Quotes are nice too. I'm not saying it should validate as XHTML, but simplicity is more profound than wc. Thanks, cls
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel lost.gob...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages faster was totally bunk). My point was not that we should write XHTML, but that we should write simple HTML, and that simple does not solely mean fewer characters. (Nor does it solely mean efficiency. I have a dog on my shelf telling me: simplicity, clarity, generality.) I was considering from the point of view of the author of a new, say, htmlfmt. To quote, On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Connor Lane Smith c...@lubutu.com wrote: I'm not even sure how fewer characters equates as simpler: LOC is only an approximation of how suckless our code is. When given a trade-off between two simple lines or one complex one, write two. A paragraph makes sense as ptext/p: it opens, it closes. Quotes are nice too. I'm not saying it should validate as XHTML, but simplicity is more profound than wc. While pondering the import of your message, and thinking about how ordinary language uses quotation marks to both open and close a quote, it struck me that my email client was giving me an elegant example of how the need for a closing tag can be eliminated. See how the '' character is used? As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more sense to me than p tags, and here again, no closing tag is required. I agree with Uriel: XML and XHTML are monstrosities. But so is HTML. ;)
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On 5 April 2010 17:34, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net wrote: it struck me that my email client was giving me an elegant example of how the need for a closing tag can be eliminated. See how the '' character is used? As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more sense to me than p tags, and here again, no closing tag is required. You just reinvented Markdown. ;) cls
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 05:52:14PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 5 April 2010 17:34, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net wrote: As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more sense to me than p tags, and here again, no closing tag is required. no closing tags are required for p either. HTML is not XML. don't confuse them. Mate
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net wrote: On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel lost.gob...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages faster was totally bunk). My point was not that we should write XHTML, but that we should write simple HTML, and that simple does not solely mean fewer characters. (Nor does it solely mean efficiency. I have a dog on my shelf telling me: simplicity, clarity, generality.) I was considering from the point of view of the author of a new, say, htmlfmt. To quote, On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Connor Lane Smith c...@lubutu.com wrote: I'm not even sure how fewer characters equates as simpler: LOC is only an approximation of how suckless our code is. When given a trade-off between two simple lines or one complex one, write two. A paragraph makes sense as ptext/p: it opens, it closes. Quotes are nice too. I'm not saying it should validate as XHTML, but simplicity is more profound than wc. While pondering the import of your message, and thinking about how ordinary language uses quotation marks to both open and close a quote, it struck me that my email client was giving me an elegant example of how the need for a closing tag can be eliminated. See how the '' character is used? Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of HTML, the '' style has it's own problems. Firstly, unless you've got an editor programmed for the syntax it means you can't cut and paste just the content of a quoted region. Secondly, don't forget that you've got to figure out how to allow literal '' characters at the start of a line if you want it to be able to work with absolutely any data someone wants to display in there (such as 8 visual cut markers). As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more sense to me than p tags, and here again, no closing tag is required. Of course, if there are other reasons why one might want to have elements within a semantic paragraph which are one separated lines then one needs to come up with a syntax for having visual blank lines which aren't (as witnessed by the use of comment blank lines in TeX/LaTeX: preceding paragraph start of paragraph content % $$displayedEqn$$ % end of paragraph content following paragraph , which again spoils the simplicity. And note how I've just used some blank lines in order to present an example within what is semantically one paragraph). None of this is to say that a different markup mechanism than HTML might work better, but it's easy to have an initially simple proposal that suddenly sprouts a lot of complexity when you add mechanisms for corner cases. Personally, the ONE, SINGLE thing XML (and specialisations) had going for it was that, for all it's annoyances, it was hoped to be dominant enough that you only had to learn techniques, common bugs and libraries for one syntax. Unfortunately the multiple ideas about how to do a better markup language mean that that even that advantage has gone. -- cheers, dave tweed__ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python. -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
[dev] simple addictive wordgame
Last night I wrote a simple game based on a facebook one called 'word challenge'. in fact i dont have fb, and there are several versions of the same game, but with different play rules. This one is quite adictive, and, apart from the side that it needs some fixes, but if you wanna try is just 350LOC (there are some memory leaks, speed improvements and other fixes to do), but if you wanna give it a try here's: http://lolcathost.org/b/wg.tar.gz The dictionaries of words can be generated from rss or webs, and english, catalan, shell dictionaries are provided in the same tarball. another script can be used to record scores, push them online and manage a menu to choose language, or so. To run: wg [dict] Have phun --pancake
Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote: Websites like this are extremely difficult to parse. Is this p the end of a paragraph or the beginning? Let's test both! In making your In case it's not clear: implicit end tags are _valid_ html, and completely unambiguous. E.g., pp will _always_ be interpreted as p/pp/p, never pp/p/p. I don't see how it's unclear, either -- you can't have a p (or ul or table) nested within a p anyway, so it's not hard to interpret. But what if we at Suckless were to attempt to write an HTML parser (oh This reminds me -- has anyone used hubbub? I'd love an excuse to make a project with it. --Anthony J. Bentley
