@eniko but it became much more powerful! If you look at what HTML and CSS can accomplish today, even down to interactivity with hidden checkboxes triggered by a label, that’s pretty awesome!
@eniko it's also still possible to write loved ones by snail mail, and we all probably could be better about that too. Thanks for the reminder to think of simple long lasting technologies that are still great solutions.
@eniko that's true, and honestly it's probably the best way to actually learn how web stuff works because you'll learn the limitations of that and then only add fancy things (templating, js, etc) as necessary
@eniko Is it? I last coded any kind of primitive HTML way back in high school, like twenty years ago.
But I'd love to make a static website so I could stop paying monthly Squarespace ransom. :/
Is it possible to do this safely and securely, just following some tutorial?
@janPospisil yes. if it's just a static website there's really, as far as i know, no security considerations. i used a static site generator for kitsunegames.com but i wrote all the html + css in a plain old text editor, it was fine
@eniko@janPospisil
Seconding: There are subtleties, but it's generally going to be more secure to use just HTML+CSS than to use any kind of JS framework or library. Modern JS brings vulnerabilities into user-space; with HTML+CSS, they stay in the transport & server spaces.
If thou’rt referring to janpospisilart.com, then yes, @janPospisil, although the pages are still mostly hand-written¹ and a generator like Hugo is mostly for gluing the header and footer for consistency and generating web feeds (mentioned below), as it is designed for text-centric content like blogs.
Hosting static sites is dirt cheap so many places like codeberg.page or tildepages.org offer hosting services while asking nothing in return. Thou will need to configure thy domain and learn the basics of (usually) Git to deploy updates, both of which should be relatively simple. Keep in mind that sending out emails in mass is never cheap, however, so thou will need to switch to something more efficient like web feeds to deliver news to thy audience.
As a side note, normally thumbnails (for faster preview) are generated along with the website, but since statistically it’s safe to assume (sorry) thou usest either Windows or macOS which makes installing anything useful unsafe and difficult,² there’d be prolly less friction if thou export them by hand. BTW @eniko and @FeralRobots, since you also hate client-side scripts as much I do, FYI showing the full image can be done in a wee of CSS.
If all that sounds alright, I can help rewriting thy website, somewhen this weekend free of charge, because I like thy art and I loath the Squarespace ads YouTubers shoved down my throat. I will minimize the boilerplate so thou should not run into much trouble changing it in the future. FWIW I recently also handcrafted my photo gallery, albeit in a different form factor and constraints.
¹Or using Go html/template, which is less redundant but could be daunting because another language.
²Which is why I went along with Hugo that is a single executable file.
@siblingpastry@eniko
I get your point, but then we are talking about a tiny, tiny part of websites that can actually be done in just HTML and CSS. For almost anything that's more than a portfolio or a blog or something like that, you need a backend that's written in another language (or a headless CMS - but then you need JS).
No, I don't have any research for that. But I think it's quite obvious, no? Just imagine a web-based chat that only fetches new messages when you reload the page. Yes, it can be done, but I certainly wouldn't want to use it. Or lets say an online cookbook, where you can add items to the ingredient list, but you need to reload the whole page - and loose stuff you didn't save before - whenever you click the + button. HTMX is much more lightweight than JS but can do all of that.
"Obvious" is a subjective point of view. That's not a rational argument in favor of (or against) anything.
HTMX is a JS parser for non-standard HTML, that's all it is.
It's easier to use from a certain mindset, and fair enough, nothing wrong with that. But the end result is compiled HTML and JS, with the parsing overhead of a middleware layer (the framework).
It's literally impossible to write a JS framework that's more efficient than vanilla JS and HTML.
@siblingpastry@eniko
Well, it's not like you provided any hard evidence against my claim either. But I still think I provided some good arguments (even if they are subjective to a certain point).
If efficiency is the be-all and end-all we'd need to write everything in WebAssembly. HTMX is not interesting because it's fast, but because it's fast to write (for a lot of use cases anyway).
The reason I mentioned HTMX in the first place, is because (in my head anyway) it's basically a beefed up version of HTML that allows me to handle a lot of things from the JS domain in a purely declarative way. Similar to how HTML allows me to specify content and layout, HTMX additionally allows me to specify behaviour - but in practically the same declarative syntax.
If you don't agree, that's fine. But I'm not really interested in a long-winded discussion about basically nothing now.
The burden of proof lies with the person who's claiming something is true. I don't need to disprove an opinion in order to show that it isn't a substantiated fact.
Something being HTML syntax does not make it HTML, and something appearing to you as beefed-up HTML does not make it so either. You're trying to contradict an objective fact by reference to arbitrary opinions.
@siblingpastry (in general, it is healthier for the soul to treat discussions as collaborative truth-seeking rather than adversarial. You yourself have made claims that you haven't backed up in this thread. It doesn't feel nice to be on the receiving end of "burden of proof" comments.)
@rain I agree with that take on discussions. From my point of view, I was not the one being adversarial, I was just making statements before I got swept into something else. I can’t deny that I lack the situational self-control to avoid that lol, I tend to meet fire with fire in such cases. But I don’t think I was the one who took it there in the first place.
@siblingpastry thanks. my personal policy is to back off from making "burden of proof" statements even if I feel that way privately, unless I'm encountering some right-wing shithead I do want to be adversarial against
Add comment