<script type="text/javascript" src="js/somscript.js"></script>

why is the closing script tag a fucking thing ?????
why would you just do /> ?????

<script>console.log(“that’s why”)</script>

End of discussion.

You mean

<div id = "fml">
<h1>
</>
<div id = "MrMad"></>
<script href="idontknowwhatiamwriting">
</>
</>

All shitup!

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multip...

Shorthand closing tags are only valid for void elements.

It's one of the things that shouldn't have been in existence at all. I guess some lazy devs were sobbing they had to type a few letters more, so now we got inconsistency by "it's valid but only for XY"

@IntrusionCM Even my teachers fuck this up

can you not?

I would add that you can inline js file into html under 200kb to speed up your site. Overall.

and one liner is a thing

Simply because it's a tag which can contain a child element being JS/VBS/... that will be executed.

@IntrusionCM you make no sense in this case.

I can use a <p> tag with no closing tag for example. though i shouldnt.

@ScriptCoded its because it doesn't make sense. and i know that this is required but it doesn't make any sense that it should be !

@theabbie nope, it won't load the script if you do it this way

<script src="jquery.js" type="text/javascript" />

@MadMadMadMrMim

HTML Standard...

There's the standard.

And then there's what's coded.

HTML parsers take a bunch of shit - eh non standard code - and try to make sense of it.

If the standards would be enforced, the internet would stop working in a second.

@IntrusionCM the standard is dumb in this case.

@MadMadMadMrMim it was written by humans.

What do you expect... ;) :)

And yes, I dislike the short tags as written before.

A lot of standards, programming languages got complicated cause shortcuts were invented.

For the sake of a few keystrokes, readability, precision and clarity were sacrificed.

Shortcuts, abbreviations and "let's skip that because it could be inferred from the context with enough knowledge" is what mostly leads to a lot of head scratching, migraine and "who the fuck thought this was a good idea..."

@IntrusionCM I wouldnt call it a shortcut.

so this makes sense:

begin
// something is here
end

and this makes sense

import somethingelse

but what the standard looks like is

import somethingelse
begin
// nothing there
end

it looks cleaner

@MadMadMadMrMim your rage is uncalled. Have you taken your pills today?

@iiii it puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

@MadMadMadMrMim yes.

Because the script tag serves more than one function.

I understand now what you mean.

The script tag doesn't mean "import".

It defines a context.

The context can reference e.g. an URI to include JavaScript from.

Or the context can contain a body to define the included JavaScript.

It's ambiguous.

:)

@IntrusionCM i think the lack of a src tag would clear up that ambiguity.

@IntrusionCM i think the lack of a src tag would clear up that ambiguity.

@MadMadMadMrMim Yes.

Ideally (same for style btw) that should have never been done in the first place.

Shortcuts. Old grumpy myself repeats himself.

Ideally one would have defined an import type with a type and an URI attribute to specify, not a script or style type to do both in a bad way.

i wish there werent so many goddamn mean twisted warped people around me so i could be happy or have somewhere to go that still made sense instead of rats inhabiting a ruined cathedral

It should have certainly been consistent with style/link, but here we are.

@MadMadMadMrMim If you think you can make it better, go ahead and write w3 a mail. Oh wait a second, they will laugh at you because doing inter compatibility since HTML started is fucking difficult and it cannot be changed when something has already been defined. And no one could have seen that coming in 1990, because the primary use of HTML was for something else than it’s used today.

You are dumb for saying that.

so.. just because they made a shredded standard that noone adopted right and a certain element would be better off being formatted differently to make it more readable, i'm dumb ? yeah because that makes sense.

I guess I'm dumb for thinking that every different browser implementing css differently and the total lack of visual communication from the standards org causing a shitstorm for developers makes me dumb too.

@petergriffin and question, why the fuck do they suck at their jobs ?

@petergriffin the way you talk they're on par with iso, or the ietf.

they make pretty markup languages mainly that noone keeps consistent or implements the same until the webkit standardized.

basically they just created more messes for the longest time than anything else.

@MadMadMadMrMim it wasn’t a shredded standard. It became shredded because of browsers implementing it differently or extending it due to the lack of unstandardized features developers needed. This doesn’t mean the standard was bad. We made it bad.

First there was a script tag, then came different types, then the src attribute. The script tag was never intended for more than a few lines of code.

One of the reasons why there is a difference with style tags and link tag Stylesheet Tags. Browsers like Internet Explorer just did what they thought was best since there was no standard. And it then became one as many sites already have been done like that in order to not break the internet.

@petergriffin and as usual that could be sorted out.

point is commenting on a way the standard could be improved does not make me stupid and the standard is bad as is.

css is a bloated mess.
and html.. eh... i dont mind html 5 but there are a few things.

personally i believe they could avoided alot of confusion DRAWING WHAT CSS WAS SUPPOSED TO DO SO THERE WERE NO DIFFERING IMPLEMENTATIONS

@MadMadMadMrMim They actually don’t suck at their jobs, you only perceive it like that because you don’t know the reasons why they did it that way. There are months of arguing and decision making involved. The whole point of them is to make a new standard that works with everything that exists already without any additional work on the developer’s side, or worse, breaking something that already worked unstandardized.

@petergriffin all in all I hate web development anyway. I think it was a good idea, excepting that it relies on what was an easily bugged and completely centralized vulnerability for the entire platform to work: the browser.

@petergriffin and now i doubt you're alive too because we had this argument before.

@IntrusionCM I could fucking kiss you, I hate when people don't bother to read about the actual spec concerning HTML, the reason why the web is so fucked up is motherfuckers thinking <p>that it is just as simple as putting tags and that is it! easy!</p>

@AleCx04 kick separate issue from my point

@MadMadMadMrMim i did not read what you had to say about it bud, got to what my man said and stopped at that. Gimme the tl;dr cuz I can't be assed to read it :P

@AleCx04 honestly kind of surprised at the very off topic vehemence surrounding something like a sensible alteration to a standard that is and I stick to this point shedded by implementation

@AleCx04 A kiss from a nice looking man would kill me instantly I guess *hehehehe*

But yeah, standards exist for a reason and the more they got mutilated the worse it has become.

e.g. german umlauts in rfc5336 / UTF 8 SMTP... It's fun to have to deal with this stuff. Not.

@IntrusionCM see the original point has been mangled

@MadMadMadMrMim Yes.

Although I like this rant.

For me the rants are more a bunch of nutjobs coming together and singing kumbayah in very interesting ways.

sometimes klingon opera (a mixture of rage and hate, bleeding ears are a good thing), sometimes andorian opera (you realize tragically that you were wrong and make very high screeching noises lamenting your own dumbness), sometimes ... just gibberish that makes no sense at all.

It's... funny and interesting how diverse opinions can be.

@IntrusionCM so I remember what I previously said to this do you ?

@MadMadMadMrMim no fucking clue.

Never liked closing tag for tag-references such as "<script src>=...", but at this point using "/>" causes unnecessary problems. You are ages late, unfortunately.

@IntrusionCM Lives

@IntrusionCM how do you feel about our “new” likely long dead president ?

@vintprox point is it shouldn’t lol

@IntrusionCM and what do you think about the social dynamics of isolation applied to secrecy?

@MadMadMadMrMim I've already got your drift. It's just that boneheads won't fix these, and *that* is my point.

@vintprox what do you think about the use of legitimate online entities to mask illicit activities ?

@vintprox PARTICIPATE IN MY TURING TEST !

@MadMadMadMrMim now describe a red herring in your own words and how trump may have been a distraction

I abandoned this account before on one occasion