109
How Standard Ebooks serves millions of requests per month with a 2GB VPS (alexcabal.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/programming@programming.dev
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Wait... I just noticed this:

[XHTML] never took off on the web, in part because in a website context so much HTML is generated by templates and libraries that it’s all too easy to introduce a syntax error somewhere along the line; and unlike HTML, where a syntax error would still render something, the tiniest syntax error in XHTML means the whole thing gets thrown out by the browser and you get the Yellow Screen of Death.

This confuses me; don't you want to make sure you are always generating a syntactically valid document, rather than hoping that the browser will make something suitable up to work around your mistake?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The thing with XHTML is that even a minor problem will make the page refuse to render and display a full page error message instead of any content. Having the browser guess how to handle the malformed HTML isn't ideal, but it's a lot better than showing nothing at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As an end result, maybe. But it also means that you get specific feedback on how to properly author it correctly and fix it before pushing it live.

    IDK, I lived through that whole era, and I’d attribute it more to the fact that HTML is easy enough to author in any text editor by complete novices. XHTML demands a hell of a lot more knowledge of how XML works, and what is valid (and, more keystrokes). The barrier to entry for XHTML is much, much, higher.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I completely agree with that assessment, but what is weird to me is that most people use frameworks so they don't actually touch any of the markup themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I don’t know if it’s “most people,” but I agree, there is no excuse for frameworks producing sloppy output - that being said, XHTML is a bit more chatty than HTML(5), so there is some minor benefit to not using the less verbose standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I feel the idea was that anyone should be able to make a webpage by just copy pasting snippits and to help with that html and Javascript will attempt to continue as best as it can, even if there are glaring issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    well, no. because broken html can still function sometimes. but most importantly most of html is not even "broken", just not "adhering to the complete standards".

    html is just formatting around the content. even completely devoid of html you can still see things. we're not writing latex here and no one cares things are a little fucky.

    as far as generated html go, you're more likely to break it further if you fuck with it anyways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sure, but shouldn't you want your generated markup to adhere to the complete standards so that you know it will be interpreted correctly, rather than hoping that the browser will make the correct guess about what you really meant?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •