Re: [dev] [sw] Suckless web-framework

On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_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 <cls_AT_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 <p>text</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
Received on Mon Apr 05 2010 - 15:29:24 UTC