Html4 created 20 years ago

>have ability to insert images with
>now it's no longer possible to view images with , now you need 100 line javascript code to view fucking image

Other urls found in this thread:

What are you talking about?

My guess is that you're trying to learn HTML, made a mistake with a tag, and found weird recommendations about jquery while looking up a solution.

still exists and works fine.

The only problem with html5 is that it's bloated as fuck, which isn't a problem at all depending on who you ask because it's still blazing fast if you don't use said bloat. The only problem with modern websites is that they use excessive amounts of javascript because it's easier to spy on people that way and attract people who grew up with flashy colors and animations on their ipads.

You forgot the DRM.

I'll listen when you show me a single website that has "DRM"., for example.

Take a look:

It's not officially part of HTML5 yet, but I'm pessimistic.

Go to KnowYourMeme without CancerScript. More and more web devs are into this fucking cancer.

That site uses javascript to insert tags. It's odd, but it doesn't stop anyone from using tags the normal way, and it has been possible since javascript first existed.

At least pick a better example. Like any Blogger site. I ended up having to read Chromium release notes in fucking netsurf.

firefox helped make this a reality

fuck mozilla

Why are you singling them out? I think they were the most reluctant of all browser (companies) that implemented it.

I don't think that Mozilla did the right thing, but why just "fuck Mozilla" and not "fuck Google" or "fuck Netflix"?

Because — and I know the cognitive dissonance from this fact will make the entrenched Holla Forums SJWs on this board have a screaming chimpout — Google is the only browser maker with enough spine and balls to push for an open web. They still ship Chromium without H.264. They paid $300M to buy rights for a codec and give it away for free - what the fuck does Mozilla do with all their sugar daddy funding? Where did that 2 billion golden parachute from AOL go? What do they spend the kickbacks from each corporate piece of shit they poz their browser with nowadays on? Paying upper-class milquetoast unicorn-headed dykes to design shitty logos?

I don't mind this idea, it was much, much better than the alternative "make it a requirement for / tags" that they pushed before.

You want to "protect" your digital content? Okay, pay someone like Google for their fancy DRM HTML5 script. Let these idiots pay for it. As long as I have the option to build my browser without the client-end version of it, I don't give a shit what those morons do with their free time and money.

Just leave it out of vanilla HTML.

Eh, it's also possible to grow your own food and get off the grid, but in practice almost nobody does this. So your argument about what's possible flies in the face of reality. The truth is what he said is correct: the img tag is effectively deprecated in practice, just not yet officially. The majority of sites today simply don't work without javascript, and denying this by saying you can just build your own with old simpler HTML doesn't fix the problem that the web today is unusable, bloated crap compared to 20 years ago.
Heck I'm from Lynx and it's hard to even make out what the right links to follow are on this site. People don't design stuff like in the old days. Now everyone assumes your browser has this feature or that feature and if you don't well they you're out of luck, or to rub it in they forward you to a "You're using an outdated browser, get Firefuck 69 and become part of botnet today!"

Oh, and more on topic, still exists and not much has changed. You might get a warning for not including an alt attribute, but it's not necessarily required. I personally think it's courteous to those who are impaired or who do not allow images in their browser, or those whose browser does not allow images.

No, it isn't. Like I said, that site still uses them.

I don't like useless use of javascript either, but the way you're talking about it is retarded.

Oh wow, one web site that still uses img tag. You found the motherload, dude! That totally makes up for the entire rest of the web being full of obfuscated megabytes of javascript per page.
Reality: that website is what's called a statistical anomaly.

That website is the example you picked as a website that didn't use tags.

Do you have an example that isn't a statistical anomaly? Why would you even pick an example that doesn't support your point?

Did I miss something? Since when would be deprecated? That's one of the first tags every HTML tutorial teaches.

I do use Javascript for my sites to make them fancy, but I always design my code in such a way that every page is still fully functional if JavaScript is turned off. I design without JavaScript in mind first, then then use JavaScript to move stuff around in the DOM for fancy effects. That way if there is no JS available the DOM stays the way it was originally written.

That's a flawed analogy. People don't do that because it's difficult and time consuming. There's no reason that you can't use img tags, as long as the major browsers continue to support them which they will do for the foreseeable future

You do things in a nice way. Using scripts for extra visual flair, or something like that is cool. If people don't give a fuck about that they can still use your site just fine. That is not how most sites are these day. Some are just a blank white screens without scripts and it's sad.


Yeah, no shit Sherlock.

>Did I miss something? Since when would be deprecated? That's one of the first tags every HTML tutorial teaches.
Yes it is deprecated. Since years ago.

I have a web browser that supports . When I open websites, the pictures are not displayed. Only on some websites they show up.

It doesn't matter what is written in HTML tutorials, it matter what is used in reality. Same thing with language and words, it doesn't matter if word you use is in dictionary, because if people don't know this word they won't understand you.

But is not the only problem, on some websites even the text is not displayed without botnet.js



Which browser? Which websites? Have you filed a bug report?

No, it's not deprecated officially, and probably won't be. But in practice, it might as well be because when you go to many websites you hit a brick wall unless you have javascript enabled. There's a bunch of reasons for this. Part of it is due to shitty frameworks and RAD tools that make a lot of assumptions about your browser. Also, most sites have been converting their designs to pander to smartphone users. Almost nobody anymore considers the "outdated" concept of a simple HTML browser without javascript. If you're using such a browser, you basically fall through the cracks of the web. Because now critical pieces of HTML are generated by javascript spaghetti code at runtime in the browser's VM (or rather the one they automatically assume you have).

who here up for making a new browser with a python engine, no javascript engine, and some swole ass plugins and we shill it on normies as progressive so they adopt it.


also, no normie is going to adopt a browser that doesn't support javascript. They don't know what javascript means, but all they know is that the internet wil suddenly begin to look weird and lots of things will stop working


You're going to end up with a browser that makes most pages ugly and doesn't work at all with the rest. It won't be faster than existing browsers either because Python is a terrible choice for the performance bottleneck of a heavy application.

If you're interested in using or contributing to a browser that's written in Python but uses an existing rendering engine (that isn't written in Python), check out qutebrowser.

i don't mean to write the browser in python, i mean to make python the chosen scripting language for the web.

Python 2 or 3? :^)

python 3

The problem isn't with browsers, HTML or even with JS (to a degree).

It is 110% the fault of web "developers".

If browsers were much, much stricter about bad code, "developers" would be forced to use the tools given to them properly.

Can you give an example of what you mean about modern browsers accepting bad code? Never read much into this before

Can't it be something typed? Does every web language have to be garbage?

If you want to get incompetent hacks who can't program their way out of fizzbuzz to use your language, yes.

Mozilla actually fought for loose parsing many years ago and is the reason for the mess we have today. That was back when XHTML was being debated, before it was standardized. It's practically impossible to correctly parse HTML today without basically writing a browser. It might as well have been a binary format and saved trillions of dollars globally on bandwidth and electricity.

People shit on webdevs all the time, but I don't envy the shit they have to put up with. Nothing is standard, you can't make any assumptions, everything relies on non-local data, and there's no safety. You either have to write tons of boilerplate or import huge boilerplate libraries

In all seriousness, is there something you can do in Javascript that you can't with a backend languaage? I've been building a home surveilance site for my house over the last month and only used JS once because I wanted a quick copout and have since rewritten it to not need it. I have yet to see a situation where I *needed* JS.

Depends on what "need" means.

JS is the biggest tumor of the internet, but not because it is bad itself, but because it used so badly and excessively.

Proper javascript that has a straightforward use takes load off the servers and makes websites more convenient, like the one you're posting on for example. There's no reason not to use it at all, in my opinion.

While javascript isn't a fantastic language, it can't be blamed for many of the terrible practices condoned by some of its users. If you somehow changed everything to python, you'd just end up with bloated python pages.

My issue with Javascript on the frontend is that there aren't any alternatives. Your option is ONE single language, like it or not.

Think of all the problems people have maintaining working and safe browser implementations of this language when it's the ONLY one.
With multiple languages issues would be multiplied and developer attention would be divided.

If you have serious issues with Javascript as a language to program in, I'd recommend checking out languages / tools that compile ("transpile") to javascript. Hell, there's even one that works with LLVM supported languages (e.g. C, C++, Python, Java)

A server-side language doesn't give you direct control over client hardware like the CPU fan or swap partitions


They just need a kernel.

It's just shitty web developers, same as the pages that use JS instead of CSS.

This, Firefox was the last major browser to include HTML5 EME support.

Google Chrome implemented HTML5 EME support 3 years ago. Try again.


All that tells me is that they like to adopt new things without any regard to whether they are good or shitty. It also doesn't inspire confidence for when the next shitty web "improvement" comes around.


No, cuckface. Mozilla adopts. Google leads.

This has to be some elaborate bait. Nobody's this retarded

Go back to /g/ you fucking cancer

You aren't exactly convincing me.

Figures. I'm not surprised, or even disappointed.


Maybe Mozilla will, when they finish implementing Chrome's extension API.

Still not convincing me of how they're helping make the web better overall.

I don't think I can reason with someone who enjoys writing XUL/XPCOM. I'm out.

It's still more powerful than WebExtensions, which will kill addons like Classic Theme Restorer and Tree Style Tabs when it replaces XUL/XPCOM.

The point is that the issue is not with the technology (or lack thereof) - it's that webdevs are faggots who don't care about performance.