<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@film_girl" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>film_girl</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://phire.place/@tim" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>tim</span></a></span> html (And perhaps I mean the rendering agents) is a fascinating artifact that, I think, mostly takes flack because it solves so many problems at the same time that it forces the user to consider those problems while taking advantage of it. </p><p>To give a great example: using it as a render target is a colossal pain in the ass relative to a lot of alternatives if what you want is pixel perfect control of the output. What HTML screams at you with its design is "You don't want that. You don't actually want that. The more you tighten your grip, the more user agents slip through your fingers." You can get pixel precision, but the language fights you every step of the way and makes you absolutely climb Mount Everest to get it because it is almost certainly not what you <em>should</em> want if you're using HTML!</p><p>But that means that if you come at it thinking of it as another kind of tool than it is, it will bite you.</p>
Reply