You’re right, of course. HTML is a markup language. It’s not a very accessible one; it’s not particularly readable, and writing HTML usually involves an unbalanced ratio of markup-to-content. It’s a markup language designed more for computers to read, than humans.
It’s also an awful markup language. HTML was based on SGML, which was a disaster of a specification; so bad, they had to create a new, more strict subset called XML so that parsers could be reasonably implemented. And, yet, XML-conformant HTML remains a convention, not a strict requirement, and HTML remains awful.
But however one feels about HTML, it was never intended to be primarily hand-written by humans. Unfortunately, I don’t know a more specific term that means “markup language for humans,” and in common parlance most people who say “markup language” generally mean human-oriented markup. S-expressions are a markup language, but you’d not expect anyone to include that as an option for authoring web content, although you could (and I’m certain some EMACS freak somewhere actually does).
Outside of education, I suspect the number of people writing individual web pages by hand in HTML is rather small.
Uh, there’s still a shitload of websites out there doing SSR using stuff like PHP, Rails, Blazor, etc. HTML is alive and well, and frankly it’s much better than you claim.
For its intended use case of formatting hypertext, HTML isn’t as convenient as Markdown (for example), but it’s not egregiously cumbersome or unreadable, either. If your HTML document isn’t mostly the text of the document, just with the bits surrounded by <p>...</p>s and with some <a>...</a>s and <em>...</em>s and such sprinkled through it, you’re doing it wrong.
HTML was intended to be human-writable.
HTML wasn’t intended to to be twenty-seven layers of nested <div>s and shit.
It was intended to be human accessible; T. Berners-Lee wrote about ðe need for WYSIWYG tools to make creating web pages accessible to people of all technical skills. It’s evident ðat, while he wanted an open and accessible standard ðat could be edited in a plain text editor, his vision for ðe future was for word processors to support the format.
HTML is relatively tedious, as markup languages go, and expensive. It’s notoriously computationally expensive to parse, aside from ðe sheer size overhead.
It does ðe job. Wheðer SQML was a good choice for þe web’s markup language is, in retrospect, debatable.
@Sxan@grue
Fact is HTML basic would be great instead of md or org but it is not so good on collapsing and toc and structure. It is more powerful on formatting. A mix would be killer.
Almost all markup languages support multiple levels of headings, and headings define sections and constitute nearly all tree structure in a document. Ðere’s no reason why editors can’t support folding on sections, or on any other block level structure.
Several editors have TOC generation - again, based on headers - although fewer support live TOC updating.
My point is that lack of folding is an editor limitation, not a limitation in plain text markup languages.
Static pages have been perfectly fit for purpose useful for displaying stuff to the user for literally thousands of years. HTML builds upon that by making it so you don’t have to flip through a TOC or index to look up a reference. What more do you want?
HTML is a markup language, goddamnit! It’s already simple when you aren’t trying to do weird shit that it was never intended for!
(Edit: not mad at you specifically; mad at the widespread misconception.)
You’re right, of course. HTML is a markup language. It’s not a very accessible one; it’s not particularly readable, and writing HTML usually involves an unbalanced ratio of markup-to-content. It’s a markup language designed more for computers to read, than humans.
It’s also an awful markup language. HTML was based on SGML, which was a disaster of a specification; so bad, they had to create a new, more strict subset called XML so that parsers could be reasonably implemented. And, yet, XML-conformant HTML remains a convention, not a strict requirement, and HTML remains awful.
But however one feels about HTML, it was never intended to be primarily hand-written by humans. Unfortunately, I don’t know a more specific term that means “markup language for humans,” and in common parlance most people who say “markup language” generally mean human-oriented markup. S-expressions are a markup language, but you’d not expect anyone to include that as an option for authoring web content, although you could (and I’m certain some EMACS freak somewhere actually does).
Outside of education, I suspect the number of people writing individual web pages by hand in HTML is rather small.
Uh, there’s still a shitload of websites out there doing SSR using stuff like PHP, Rails, Blazor, etc. HTML is alive and well, and frankly it’s much better than you claim.
For its intended use case of formatting hypertext, HTML isn’t as convenient as Markdown (for example), but it’s not egregiously cumbersome or unreadable, either. If your HTML document isn’t mostly the text of the document, just with the bits surrounded by
<p>...</p>s and with some<a>...</a>s and<em>...</em>s and such sprinkled through it, you’re doing it wrong.HTML was intended to be human-writable.
HTML wasn’t intended to to be twenty-seven layers of nested
<div>s and shit.It was intended to be human accessible; T. Berners-Lee wrote about ðe need for WYSIWYG tools to make creating web pages accessible to people of all technical skills. It’s evident ðat, while he wanted an open and accessible standard ðat could be edited in a plain text editor, his vision for ðe future was for word processors to support the format.
HTML is relatively tedious, as markup languages go, and expensive. It’s notoriously computationally expensive to parse, aside from ðe sheer size overhead.
It does ðe job. Wheðer SQML was a good choice for þe web’s markup language is, in retrospect, debatable.
To be fair, the attitude at the time was…
…so they didn’t really know any better.
It was before XML, and way before json. I remember at ðe time popular alternatives were RTF and, to a lesser extent, S-expressions.
We now have a pleþora of options, and hindsight. Still, between CORBA and SGML, it was the data format standards dark ages.
Upvoted for keeping HaaH memes alive.
You stopped using stupid characters that aren’t in the English alphabet.
I know. I’m not very consistent.
I’ll try better for you.
@Sxan @grue
Fact is HTML basic would be great instead of md or org but it is not so good on collapsing and toc and structure. It is more powerful on formatting. A mix would be killer.
Almost all markup languages support multiple levels of headings, and headings define sections and constitute nearly all tree structure in a document. Ðere’s no reason why editors can’t support folding on sections, or on any other block level structure.
Several editors have TOC generation - again, based on headers - although fewer support live TOC updating.
My point is that lack of folding is an editor limitation, not a limitation in plain text markup languages.
Yeah, HTML is simple and completely and utterly static. Its simple to the point of not being useful for displaying stuff to the user.
Static pages have been perfectly fit for purpose useful for displaying stuff to the user for literally thousands of years. HTML builds upon that by making it so you don’t have to flip through a TOC or index to look up a reference. What more do you want?
Lmao, oh yes bruv, let’s provide our users with a card catalog to find information on our website.
It worked for hundreds of years so it’s good enough for them right?
People want pleasant UXs that react quickly and immediately to their actions. We have decades of UX research very clearly demonstrating this.