Do you think that not considering Russia a main cyber threat is a wrong decision? Why?
Article gives no clear answer to why would it will make everything worse.
It does, however, speculate on how it may be a bad decision, but no one knows for sure.
> Your Markdown- based content generates semantic HTML
HTML is far more expressive in semantics, so using markdown to get html means you will never be able to get most semantic things you actually wanted.
React couples the structure, styling into js components only if you make it so. You can just write style.css, import it and refer to it is classname as `className="my_custom_class"`.
And there is no clean separation of concern when it comes to html, css and js. You can force to separate them, but that would be a separation of technologies, not concerns - they are too intertwined to be separated.
And the example of island on the tutorials proves that:
```
<form @name="contact-me" @submit.prevent="submit" autocomplete="on">
```
There is no way to create a standard-first framework without introducing some form of DSL. This doesnt look like html, this doesnt look like js, and it is def not primarily css based anything.
___
The project is nice, using new features like starting style, view transition - instead of js based solutions is cool. There are a lot of experimental features, like popover api. The browser support is low and those things are not production-ready for everyone (maybe for some).
The approach is good, the site is good, the docs are good, but I dont like the distinction from competitors. Like I can use all those features in react/vue/astro/qwik. What makes you unique? Being able to apply web standard solutions? How about something along the lines - we create better primitives so you can create you website faster/easier?
Opened a website.
Already got `Welcome to our website!` modal that block the content.
Through the modal's overlay can see the banner `Your product could be here`.
Well, that is annoying. Thank you so much, I would rather use anything that is less intrusive.
It is the same div soup for a screen reader, because there is no behavior attached to those new tags.
They can not be a landmark, there are not marked as headings, they have no roles.
Just a container with a text.
And to attach the behavior you need to use javascript.
So without js it wont work.
Why bother and try yo create half-baked non working solution if you can just use html?
Well, it easier to style, maybe. But hey, there is a class attribute.
No, they don't.
Aria roles are not for making one tag to work like another. (Otherwise what is the point of having different tags with different semantics?).
Aria is for making inaccessible html more accessible.
Links can not be disabled (buttons can) - so they dont rely on js to work;
Buttons rely on js (except for submitting the form).
There is no way to interchange one with another without sacrificing usability.
JSX is awesome. And it is optional.
React picked js-first approach. Everything inside curly braces is a valid js expression. So you can use more and more vanilla js features and be happy, while some angular-first frameworks forces you to use some strange semantics;
They also make you learn new pseudo attributes - ng-if, ng-for, etc. Those are not valid html attributes. And you cant translate that knowledge anywhere else.
With react you just need to remember to pass className instead of class and sometimes to pass key prop and you are good to go. Overhead is minimal.
Since jsx is optional, you can write <Component value={1} />, {Component({ value: 1 })} or createElement(Component, { value: 1 }), which gives you so much control.
Do you really suggest https://htmx.org/?
That thing has bold questions, like
> Why should only <a> and <form> be able to make HTTP requests?
And than you turn off your js in the browser and try to open a demo from the htmx. White screen of death. It doesnt even work without js. Why even bother to use it?
HTML is not perfect, but it is well tested, can work without js, also works with screenreader and you can create accessible web apps.
With htmx you can create something usable to some degree, but completely inaccessible, which may lead your company to be sued.
Well, is says that the website itself was build by the tool.
Non-semantic tags, divs instead of links, buttons instead of links, a lot of inline styles (which is a bad practice), deep nesting.
So inline styles will make caching css impossible, so high load times, not good for performance.
Deep nesting makes the problem even worse.
So the result is a slow bloated inaccessible code, but the result may look ok.
If all you want is a pretty picture - than yeah, it is a great tool.
I prefer this approach - https://github.com/seek-oss/playroom
Just create your components and add them to the sandbox and allow your designers to play with them.
- copy paste the content of the tweet - meta data is lost (date and time, author, obv it is possible to copy paste the text and add links to original tweet and link to an author;
- screenshot - now you dont have to add custom styles, meta data exists, but it is not usable - you can make is to click on tweet will open a tweet, but click on tweet author will open authors profile. Also screenreaders and bots - they dont parse text from images and it is harder to make images work on smaller screens.
The solution is not as simple as - ctrl+c ctrl+v text or screenshot and call it a day.
You need to consider that content will be interactive (all links should work) and accessible (for screenreaders and mobile).
___
So it is understandable why low effort approach with embedded scripts, but less secure is more popular than high effort most likely not completely working, but more secure approach.
The better way would be to use twitter api and render tweets with your own styles. Safe, accessible, interactive.
Article gives no clear answer to why would it will make everything worse. It does, however, speculate on how it may be a bad decision, but no one knows for sure.