you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 184 points 1 year ago (20 children)

This came up in the thread last night. Why would you dynamically load content that, practically, never changes?

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] [S] 142 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    It ACTUALLY never changes. Even if it's Amended, the Amendment is an addition, nothing gets removed.

    See: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

    "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Yup, even the ban on alcohol is still an amendment (the 18th). It's just cancelled out by the 21st.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That’s what the s html element is for:

    <s>strikethrough</s>

    strikethrough

    (not to be confused with /s for sarcasm)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Still waiting on that tag to be canonical

    <sarcasm>sorry not sorry</sarcasm>
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    because this is an annotated version of the constitution with legal analyses. those texts need to be updated occasionally with new case law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's almost like the base document can be loaded without annotations and never change. Then have the annotations load separately on top of the base page preventing even this odd "could be a tech issue" problem.

    Don't accept their blaming tech for it. There is no reason that those annotations should even have been updated at this particular point anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If the tech issue is real, it's because they were changing these annotations to basically the same effect, downplaying or deleting these sections of the constitution. (Not currently capitalized.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Because not all documents are immutable and it doesn't make sense to have a one off system. It is the same reason that most websites use the same CMS system for the "about us" page that might change one every two years as well as every single article and calendar.

    But also... having an immutable document also feels like one of the best unit/sniff tests you can have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, the correct way to display a short simple document like this is plain html with bog-standard structure and indexing/metatext markup plus device and accessibility targeted css. That is it. Any scripts or references should fail fully gracefully back to web 1.0.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    This came up in the thread last night. Why would you dynamically load content that, practically, never changes?

    I would not be surprised if some 20 year old "vibe coder" touched it, since they don't know shit about computers they made bad choices.

  • source
  • parent