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

From: Charlie Kester <>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:34:41 -0700

On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel <> 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 <> 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.

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.
Received on Mon Apr 05 2010 - 17:34:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 05 2010 - 17:48:01 UTC