yeah i just had a new york times article that showed half the article then said javascript was needed to show the rest. um no. if you could render that much you don't need javascript to just have the whole thing there. now im sure there are a bunch of javascript things I don't want to be a part of your site runs.

Some websites that display interactive data, and so forth, need javascript to work at all for that feature. But, most websites could provide basic functionality without javascript. What irks me is the requirement to run javascript to see anything at all. If you're displaying a blank page when I visit without javascript, that is a broken site, IMO. At the bare minimum display a message that javascript is required. From there, I can decide whether what you're offering is worth enabling javascript. Also, sites that demand I run every single script to see any content almost always ends with me leaving and never returning. Which, I suppose, is fine with the developer and owner, too.

If your website doesn't work without javascript, then it will be permanently broken for me and many others who disable it by default for very valid reasons. The has been part of the web since at least forever, so if your website doesn't support that, it's because your web developer isn't very good.

This can also be easily done with css frameworks like bootstrap or flexbox.

Modern websites no longer fit the document-centric model HTML was created for. A typical news homepage mixes headlines, images, teasers, and interactive elements in ways the original spec never anticipated. The New York Times even present teasers without headlines at all. This diversity shows how little shared foundation there is for developers today – and why HTML needs a broader, more coordinated evolution beyond isolated improvements.

Aren't such cases already covered? I don't see the issue or alternative.

Gotcha, thanks!

Originally as a hobby, but I've been a professional web developer/software engineer for over 2 decades now.

Have been you been doing it professionally or as a hobby?

As someone who has been programming web apps since the mid 90s, this is a great article and I learnt a lot that'll I'll be using from now on. Thanks for that.

Have people really forgotten about framesets? Because those are definitely still used in some places in the wild.

I remember around 2006 or so there was a lot of talk about replacing them with something called XFrames, which sounded exciting to me at the time; does anyone know what happened to that?

this reminds of me of the ruby gems for heckle, flay, and flog.

Unpopular opinion, but this is a bit of a pointless effort. They are never going to get the default form elements to the same level of control/style/design/functionality that web developers need, so JS is going to stay.

Basic form elements are good enough for basic sites, anything more can fall back on JS+CSS bullshit.

This blog post reminds me of Discord's dates, often times used as release date indicators (of a game, update, stream, etc), and could be fit for <time> for what the user intends.

These could be native popovers, popovers using JS or even custom :after CSS pseudo elements.

I guess it was Zachariah's joke that you didn't get :)

due to rendering issues

oic, so the thing that it normally means.
I kinda got confused with with what Zachariah replied

The blog is authored by someone called Ollie Williams, this is what I meant.

to put your name next to.

I don't see a name next to it.
Did they fix something later, or am I missing the joke?

I'm guessing that the author said this to warn people not to rely on this technique, as it's not part of the specification. Does it behave consistently across all browsers?

My style is a lack thereof.

perhaps their name is only next to it due to rendering issues

Every body gotta have style

I’m not sure how much this matters seeing as it works in all browsers regardless, but use of inside the is technically invalid according to the HTML specification.

What a bizzare statement to put your name next to.

This does remind me there was a time when websites having the W3C validation badges was all the rage.

Turns out no, an imagemap cannot use relative units for its hotspots. Sort of. I can use whatever units i want for one corner of a rectangular hotspot, i can even mix units, but one corner has to be in px. What does work is adding a single pixel transparent image with a link, stretched to cover the hotspot. Then i can position and scale that image using vw units (vh and % won't work) and for reasons beyond my comprehension, that just works.

I just found a workaround of my own, but thanks anyway. My site currently doesn't use any JS so i'm putting off learning it until i have to.