The problem framed by JWZ is not a technical one. It is a social one, and centered upon values. Eliminating <blink> changes the existing content of the web. There's a reasonable argument that that is a bad thing - again one based on values not technology.

To put it another way, <blink> has meaning by virtue of its history. Its presence on a page says something to the viewer - not something technical but something cultural.

<blink>'s removal does not make the web richer or more meaningful. Instead, its removal does something quite the opposite.

I won't say that it is vandalism - but it does wantonly alter the expression of existing web content, and does so to the very content that is most in danger of being lost to history. It neuters what makes some web pages representative of their time and place.

> To put it another way, <blink> has meaning by virtue of its history.

I agree. The Book of Mozilla stated: "Their tags shall blink until the end of days", and they are now violating the scripture.

On the other hand, the tag has been on it's way out since IE started catching on in 1998. So very few will notice their apostasy.

Or, the end of days is upon us.

I think we shouldn't expect historic pages to work in modern browsers. As long as we can reliably run older browsers we can also view historic pages as they were once rendered.

We absolutely should expect historic pages to work in modern browsers (you want to just wantonly throw away history for no good reason?) And you absolutely cannot reliably run older browsers. This logic doesn't even work out right- So, once all the servers in the world break backwards compatibility with the old browsers (thus making them absolutely incapable of being run on modern networks), THEN we should go back to our modern browsers, and make them render the old pages again, after we dropped support. What?

What about pages that are intended to look like historic pages, because they are e.g. paying tribute to them, or mirroring how far a programmer has come from when he first started using the Internet.

I think there's enough cruft on today's bloated Internet that the blink tag is hardly a significant step in a right direction.

What old browsers can we still run reliably? Serious question.

Any. That's what VMs are for.

So johnny six pack who made a web site for his crochet club back in 1997 using microsoft front page is going to fire up a VM and install an old browser to look at it? uh huh.

Yes, much like I can never visit a faraway country because I can't pilot a plane.

So I need to have the level of skill needed to pilot a plane just to look at my old family photos, drawings and poetry? And you make products with the expectation from your customers, perhaps?

"Trust me with your data, I am a technologist. It's okay, I'll take care of it. Though I will expect you to fire up a VM if you still care about it 10 years from now."

And statically linked binaries, if necessary.

I agree that we shouldn't expect it.

Not expecting it is not the same as not wanting it - and the demise of <blink> is an expression of wants - or rather want nots.

It'd be interesting if we saw a browser actually version-compatibility break, in the sense of "HTML5 supported, HTML4 won't even render."

Lots of mediums have gone extinct - tapes, punch cards, what not. To view them now, one has to get a capable device. Maybe to see some old web sites in all their glory we just need to download Mosaic again. Perhaps someone will even make a Javascript emulator of Mosaic. It happened for other things, like C64 games.

I think something can be said for getting rid of useless stuff in a codebase.

This is right on. Bring back the blink tag

www.iwantmyblinktagback.com

I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to add a userstyle for having <blink> back. Actually... I think I'll do just that.

Blink's removal makes the Web less likely to make people sick. Epileptics have a terrible time with flashing things.

Thank god we can finally blink non-text elements. The glorious HTML5/CSS3 future is upon is.

https://github.com/wearefractal/blink-polyfill is more comprehensive

Just an FYI: you can use step timing functions to obviate the need for the 1% change hack :).

Technically, this isn't the right solution, but I appreciate the suggestion. Firefox should honor HTML standard and add it back, and add an option in about::config or some other dialog and disable it there if they think it should be disabled by default.

Blink was never a standard. Lou Montulli thought up the idea while drunk and then someone else implemented it for a joke.

"When we released Netscape Navigator 1.0 we did not document the blink functionality in any way, and for a while all was quiet. Then somewhere, somehow the arcane knowledge of blinking leaked into the real world and suddenly everything was blinking. "Look here", "buy this", "check this out", all blinking. Large advertisements blinking in all their glory. It was a lot like Las Vegas, except it was on my screen, with no way of turning it off.

In the end, much was said, most of it in the form of flaming posts to various discussion boards, and the <blink> tag will probably be remembered as the most hated of all HTML tags. I would like to publicly state that at no time did I actually write code or even seriously advocate for the <blink> tag. It is true that I put forth the initial inspiration, but it really was merely a thought experiment. I am not going to name any names of the people who coded the dastardly deed, if they wish to step forward, they will need to do it themselves."

http://www.montulli.org/theoriginofthe%3Cblink%3Etag

Also, firefox used to have an option in about:config to allow the blink tag to be turned off.

<blink> as the most hated?

what about <marquee>?

It's not in any HTML standard, but strangely there is a joke DTD on w3.org with BLINK: http://www.w3.org/Style/HTML40-plus-blink.dtd

On the other hand, "text-decoration: blink" (which has also been killed in Firefox) is standard CSS (although the standard does go on to kind-of suggest not implementing it...)

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#lining-striking-props

I suggest you read this :) http://seriouspony.com/blog/2013/7/24/your-app-makes-me-fat

Adding another option to about:config that most users will never need or see does not cause cognitive load in any real sense.

Perhaps consider the open-closed principle and whether it should be a setting or a third-party extension.

The humor of this joke is in how many people (perhaps including its author!) take it seriously.