News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Using Standard HTML (1997) by awinter-py on Sunday January 19, 2020 @10:53AM (#22092028)
this was written before chrome, firefox, ajax, safari, node, most banner ads and a boatload of breaking changes to css

as far as we know, nothing on the web is future-proof -- I suspect if the goal is to serve archeaologists, we don't know what will really be usable in the long term.

I think video game emulators are an interesting success story in this space. Short of that, acid-free paper or stone also last quite well when stored correctly.

Re:Using Standard HTML (1997) by bdcravens on Sunday January 19, 2020 @11:35AM (#22092263)
Node is just a backend language. The HTML you write in node in 2020 can be targeted for 1997, and if you have a server from 1997 running ASP 2.0 it can target browsers working in 2020. You get to craft the output.

Chrome/Firefox/Safari all do a pretty good job of rendering HTML consistently - we've come a lot further than where we were in 1997, when websites commonly had "Made for Netscape" or "Made for IE" graphics on them.

Fun fact: AJAX came from an extension to the browser from Microsoft (first written for Outlook web client). For all the talk about standards and open source, I find it ironic that what is possibly the most defining feature of today's web came from what at time was the greatest force against standards and open source.

Re:Using Standard HTML (1997) by mr_toad on Sunday January 19, 2020 @08:13PM (#22095417)
Microsoft was also first to the table with DHTML, or what we now call DOM manipulation.

The combination of DOM manipulation and asynchronous HTTP was like crack for developers, and resulted in an explosion of IE only business apps, which caused IT departments to become IE-only, which led to a feedback effect.

All the crappy IE-only back-end systems that still fester in enterprises today hark back to those days.

Re:Using Standard HTML (1997) by adrianN on Sunday January 19, 2020 @12:38PM (#22092650)
I'm pretty sure that archeologists are happy about any human readable format, and don't worry too much about browser support.
Re:Using Standard HTML (1997) by awinter-py on Sunday January 19, 2020 @01:12PM (#22092863)
it depends on how far forward they are (like have they forgotten the language they're interpreting)

the rosetta stone is useful because it's a concordance

in that light, there could be value in structured databases that make clear semantic links between words, or which link words to images

Re:Using Standard HTML (1997) by ori_b on Sunday January 19, 2020 @01:55PM (#22093143)
If we're talking that far ahead -- our storage media won't last that long.