6 December, 2015 -
Breakfast... Dinner... Launch
By Jason M. Knight (aka Deathshadow)
It truly feels like I'm hitting the launch button a bit prematurely, but it's the only way to test things like Disqus and social media functionality. Most of the content I wanted up and ready to go at launch is in place, though there is still a great deal I'll be adding in the coming weeks.
On the agenda, in no real order:
Hard to do that before people ask questions.
This might take a while since my previous weapon of choice, SMF, has gone and shit its own bed by using jQuery.
I'm arguing with myself over looking elsewhere, or making a custom skin that may or may not be compatible with future versions of SMF. Maybe I'll give myBB a second look, though its template system - like most "what do you mean PHP is already a templating system" crap makes me want to introduce my metacarpus to someone's oral cavity with significant velocity.
That's a good question actually, are there any forum software out there right now that DON'T suck and won't make me have to throw 99% of their markup and scripttardery in the trash? Any suggestions? vBull, Xenforo and phpBB are right out since they fail on the bloated idiotic garbage they call markup and the fact I'd have to completely redo the CSS to meet accessibility minimums.
One of the things I want to add is a proper HTML reference that explains the MEANINGS of tags from a site developers point of view. The thing is, now I'm in a debate with myself over do I just go ahead and document HTML 5 in plain English, or do I throw the W3C's specifications in the trash and just write a brand new specification as Aaron suggested some three or four years ago.
Simple fact is I don't find a lot if improvements in HTML 5 over 4 Strict, most of the new stuff is pointless redundancies... and to be frank there's a lot of legacy cruft that I think an axe should be swung at. If Gimli's not around I'm sure Zoltan has one handy.
When the WhatWG started creating HTML 5, they were first documenting what COULD be done in existing browsers, and creating tags and attributes to help people with how they WERE writing HTML at the time. The problem with this is first a specification shouldn't say how people are doing it, but how people SHOULD be doing it!. It's why to me HTML 5 reeks of being built by folks who don't understand semantics, don't understand the intent behind HTML 4 Strict's creation, and on the whole just want to let people sleaze out sites any-old-way, in a "who cares about accessibility or speed" kind of way.
The hardest to fathom part of that being they then sell the bloated outdated crap to people as new, shiny, faster and easier -- NONE of which is true in the slightest!
Any new "specification" I'd make would start out as a subset of HTML 5, built using the same "get rid of the redundancies" and "get presenatation out of the markp" philosophy If my making a new specification ends up making sense, people like it, we can get people to use it (since as a subset it would be real world deployable immediately)... who knows.
Maybe I could then get the W3C to listen for a change, or we simply supplant them for being doddering, toothless, and increasingly irrelevant.
Excuse any bits and pieces that aren't fully functional yet like social media or a a few of the subpage links. I figured if I'm gonna take this online for testing those, I might as well get a head start on letting folks see what I've been up to.