err4nt

Look into custom elements and web components, HTML already has amazing stuff built in, supported in every browser, and maybe even being used on some of your favourite sites!

Though English has two plural forms "media" and "mediums", are they interchangeable? If you say "media" I think of more than one medium of communication, but if you say "mediums" I think of a group of humans who engage in necromancy and talking to spirits and stuff (being a medium as a job)

Not the original commenter but I've heard of people debugging smart TV's using https://www.wireshark.org to see the network requests, you would connect the device you want to inspect to a network being shared through your computer running Wireshark, and then you can analyze every request going in and out (or at least see them and be aware of the traffic)

But it's not that big, comparatively. 2/3 people are using Chrome, 1/6 are using Safari, and ~1/28 are using Firefox. If you look at a trend line over the last 10 years Firefox has fallen from its peak around ~30% in a steady decline toward 3% (and eventually 0%). It's not big, it's barely hanging onto numbers on the chart, alongside Internet Explorer and Edge. Some data: https://caniuse.com/usage-table

Here in Canada we have e-transfers securely from bank account to bank account, in minutes/hours.

It's not binding, but it's a hint they may listen to where you can say things like if there's a certain URL structure where your server would keep serving content infinitely and just waste the crawlers time and resources, you can hint to them they maybe they should avoid certain URLs, but hey if they wanna waste their resources crawling that anyway be my guest!

How does writing invalid HTML help toward the goal of correct parsing exactly? To me it would seem to open up an infinite variety of edge cases that simply don't need to exist if you're working with 100% standard code.

Custom attributes (without data-*) are invalid HTML unless you're using them on a custom HTML element. If you're defining a custom element, you're responsible for defining what its attributes mean - outside of that, no they aren't allowed and yes they are unsafe to use, and restrict the standards bodies from being able to move forward freely without risking breaking the web because of invalid code in the wild.

Usually we try keep family and business apart (nepotism is seen as evil), but the way businesses run so often exploits or abuses humans and families. With this mindset of adopting future business owners into your real family, it's putting family above business even in business. I wonder how the results pan out, maybe there's wisdom in here we're largely missing by the way we approach things.

Really makes you wonder which businesses (and indeed which industries) will exist 1000 years from today!

Very inspiring, thanks for sharing.

The HTML spec mentions this:

    JavaScript libraries may use the custom data attributes, as they are considered to be part of the page on which they are used. Authors of libraries that are reused by many authors are encouraged to include their name in the attribute names, to reduce the risk of clashes. Where it makes sense, library authors are also encouraged to make the exact name used in the attribute names customizable, so that libraries whose authors unknowingly picked the same name can be used on the same page, and so that multiple versions of a particular library can be used on the same page even when those versions are not mutually compatible.

This is saying that if you have `data-thing`, then putting your own name in there is better, like `data-mylib-thing` to tell it apart from `data-yourlib-thing`, but the ultimate in flexibility and compatibility is if the end-user of your library can configure this part so they can safely tell `data-yourlib-v3-thing` apart from `data-yourlib-v4-thing` etc.

Those five letters are the difference between safe code and unsafe code. If you've used data-* you can rest assured your attributes will always be author-defined and not interfere with any future real attributes defined by HTML, whatever those may be.

But if you invent and use invalid attributes, any browser could do something with that, any day, for any reason, and it wouldn't be a bug - you're the one that would have chosen to build on top of undocumented and non-standard behaviour. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to you when the safe and future-proof approach is so clearly marked and cheap and easy to do?

When you camp on the platform namespace it ties the hands of standards bodies - we will not get <modal> in HTML for real because too many people already went ahead and did it. Same for <accordion>, etc. Look up 'Smooshgate' for a similar example in JavaScript.

Our workflows should have us practice writing _valid_ code, which our tools can then take and transform into other _valid_ code. Any workflow where the humans practice doing the _invalid_ thing so the tool can magically fix it later is a bad idea IMO. Practice writing good code and use tools to make it even better!

Everything you just said - these form inputs aren't related to a form, and assistive technology won't have any clue about the clever CSS selector hacks and what their effects are.

If you want to build something that's nice for humans and machines, look up best practices for this sort of thing - plenty of information is widely available on how to build things in usable and accessible ways (and it's simpler to do it correctly than to use these 'hack'-like workarounds anyway!)

Abusing HTML form inputs as a way to store application state in DOM is hostile to usability and accessibility - please don't do this for any sites humans need to use. HTML does have progressive disclosure elements built in with `<details>` and `<summary>` which work without JS (I was hoping the demo was showing that or something like it)

> It's worth mentioning that, if you prefer, you can use the `data-` prefix when using htmx

I don't know why people who make frameworks either prefer invalid HTML, or if they do allow people to write valid HTML they seem to show the invalid code in the docs

You are not allowed to invent any old attributes you want and add them to any element and have it be valid HTML, but you can invent any attribute you want so long as it begins with `data-`.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#embedding-cu...

I've heard Jews and Christians having issues with their own buildings, and other buildings being called 'temple', so all I know is that's not the silver bullet if you're trying to do a word swap. I think the right way to go is to generalize so we're not reading more into it than we know, "religious building" or "religious site", "religious area", or maybe "ceremonial building" if you're not sure the nature of the use. On the other hand, if you are certain about what it was, then you can be specific and it won't be wrong or need correcting.

Is what is considered a 'temple' and what is not considered a 'temple' something all laypeople and scholars agree on?

(anecdotally, I've discovered some people have very strong reactions to the word 'temple' being used for certain buildings, and I am curious to know why - haven't figured out why for the people I know yet, but be aware it's not going to be a conflict-free term either)

I know there are browser fans who have a preference of UI or companies etc etc, but the answer to the question of why so many people choose to fork Chromium to make their browser distro is solely based on the fact that it's technically the best browser engine out there and to fork anything else would be putting you at an immediate disadvantage compared to forking Chromium, so you'd start with the best and then extend it from there.

I just don't get the impression OP is even aware there are groups in existence working on web standards apart from W3C.

Between IE and the current Chromium-based Edge browser, was born, lived, and died another browser engine named EdgeHTML.

IE was 2 browser families ago from Microsoft.

W3C does not publish all web standards, notably it doesn't publish the three biggest technologies used in web browsers:

- HTML is worked on by WHATWG

- CSS is worked on by CSSWG

- JavaScript is worked on by TC39

And IE wasn't killed by features moving too fast, Microsoft made Edge browser and still does. Mozilla hasn't been killed by Google or competition, it's been kept alive in large part by Google (I think in some years as much as 90% or more of its total income coming from Google) so they get hundreds of millions—the problem at Mozilla is bad management for the last decade.

I'm not sure how well this vision represents reality as it already is today.

But then how would you enrich the CEO?

I saw from people related to Mozilla on Twitter that when they had their most recent major layoff, they canned the entire research department except for the Hubs team, and that Mozilla was planning on turning Hubs into a revenue stream. So you might say they have pivoted to this, or have dropped everything else in pursuit of this.

You can support :has(), and things like it yourself via client-side JavaScript styling runtimes well enough.

The individual (and so also teams of individuals) have never had more powerful technology available to build websites and web apps, and access to be able to put amazing things online than right now. We _should_ be able to do all kinds of things previously unimaginable. When people start caring about competition and a healthier ecosystem more, I don't think it will take long for good competition to arise, the issue right now is that some people don't care because they don't understand why they should care (these people can be educated) and some people just don't care (not sure what we can do about these people except give them time).

I wonder what percentage of their bottom line comes from goodwill donations from individuals, versus the millions they get each year from Google and various other search companies they have contracts with - in some recent past years Google has been funding like 90%+ of their budget haven't they?

Can confirm! I've sent tips to musicians who put up music under free/Creative Commons music!

My theory is if you want to see something tomorrow, the best insurance you have it is to make it profitable for the people doing it today, so giving my money to musicians means a better chance there will be more music in the future <3

Agreed, it's not a 'remote work' thing, it's a 1-person-at-the-organization-is-invisible-at-the-office kind of thing.

I will only work on 100% distributed teams where the entire organization is communicating as though they're all remote, even on days when a couple of them may be meeting at the office or working from the same place by choice.

I've been self-employed working remotely from my clients since 2011 so I can hopefully answer some of these fears :D

1. It is a different vibe compared to working with co-workers, so instead you find collaborators who may not work for the same company, or perhaps you code with your friends that aren't working on the same project. I had a membership at a workspace filled with other go-getting, fun-loving entrepreneurial mostly young professionals and it was that same amazing social + work setting, but 100% divorced from my employment/client. If I lost a client that wonderful work community and environment wouldn't have gone anywhere.

2. It is harder to overhear things at the watercooler if there's no watercooler - if you're remote in a non-remote company you will be missing out, but in a remote-first company you're forced to find other ways to communicate. It's up to each person to open those channels and pursue it, but in 100% distributed teams this happens naturally (when there is no office). You do have to be a little proactive sending some emails though "So I hear you like cats" "So I heard in the meeting you're travelling to South America now, how is that?", etc.

I think what we'll see is the idea that your employer must get all your butts into chairs under the same roof is not the best way to do things for a few reasons:

- it's costly to the employer to shelter and provide for employees in real estate and so many other ways if they simply don't need to have a building

- it limits the talent pool they can hire from geographically for little good reason - a distributed team can hire anybody anywhere in the world and that definitely gives you a competitive advantage at finding talent!

After going this work-from-my-own-setting for almost a decade I feel like it's inevitable, and I think companies who don't use a 100% distributed model today will be competing harder than they need to and paying more than they should to do it.

I'm glad COVID has accelerated the schedule for all this happening, but I really hope most offices don't go back.

Here are some tips I've found for making the most of working from your own surroundings:

- DO customize the environment to your comfort: lights, sounds, smells, privacy, seating - if you could design the perfect environment for being at your best in that moment, take those liberties. It pays off in productivity

- DO get up and move around often throughout the day, or move from place to place. It seems sometimes you get into a funk and all you have to do to leave that dim cloud is just physically relocate and you'll be refreshed mentally. Get up and go make a coffee, go water the lawn as a break, go check the mail. These little breaks will help you keep up the pace and give you stamina.

- DO get out of the house (COVID-willing), if there are cafés or outdoor places with electricity and bathrooms and tables and chairs it can be good and here's a secret -> set goals when you leave the house for what you must accomplish before you return home. If a café has hours and closes down for the night you have tricked yourself with a very real deadline and sense of urgency that otherwise wouldn't be there. By setting goals for myself and using real time deadlines like this I can stay focused on what I'm supposed to be doing

In short, I envision that in 10+ years and for a long time we it will be normal for us to design offices at home, or share rent of work studios with our family and friends, and what used to be coworkers and office drama will just be the people you choose to live and work with, and you can get hired and lose your job and this social group of people you work around doesn't need to change. Overall I think it will be better!