So, uhh, I tried to view-source on a gmail tab. A solid wall of code. There's nothing there meaningful, not like the web pages of 1999 used to be.
If you're telling me you can browse the wall of code on a site like gmail.com and learn new tips and tricks from it, well, pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Some sites are pushing shitty, hard to read code, sure. But instead of allowing them to continue working against the spirit of the system, we should shame them, and use them as examples of what not to do. If a couple of bad politicians abuse their system, we don't say "fuck it. lets go back to a monarchy"
Heck I picked the front page of BBC News and opened it up. Wall of minified JS. Further down the page we see something that vaguely resembles normal HTML except for stuff like this:
<div id=markets_index_promo class="hidden" data-comp-meta="{"id":"markets_index_promo","type":"remote-portlet","handler":"remotePortlet","deviceGroups":null,"opts":{"assetId":"10263779","id":"market_data\/markets_index_promo","loading_strategy":"post_load","position_info":{"instanceNo":1,"positionInRegion":3,"lastInRegion":false,"lastOnPage":false,"column":"secondary_column"}}}">
> View Source is already useless on most large sites
No it isn't. Web devs can easily read source on almost all sites all the time.
> Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans
Yes they are - that why we've got view-source.
> and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary.
That's the point - it's NOT compiled binary.
The sanctity of View Source is exactly what's in question here, and I stand in the group that says "no" to closed-source web specifications.