bazoom42

> calling them "Christian" is a bit of a stretch

Isn’t the Armenian church like the oldest Christian church? Why wouldn’t they be called Christian?

HN uses JavaScript though, not just plain HTML.

Actors routinely memorize whole plays, so it is not implausible for someone to have memorized 15 min of A Tale of Two Cities.

The claim in the article is he remembered everything he read perfectly, which is wild. But another source claim he specifically memorized the Dickens book to train his English, which sounds more likely.

Is many worlds falsifiable?

Why didnt you vibecode the The nonfunctional requirements?

CSS is for styling and layout, but there is no conceptual reason this couldn’t be defined through functions.

“Code” is not a concern like semantic vs style.

Most regex dialects allow whitespace and comments, so that already gets you halfway there.

Who would want to use a browser which couldn’t render html? Even if a better format arrived, there are millions of already existing html pages which people would want to be able to read.

The cool thing with a wasm-based xslt implementation is there is no need for the browser vendors to gate-keep it. Just use the implementation you prefer.

The reason HTML is more widely used than latex is obviously because browsers support it natively.

It is not because of specific known vulnerabilities. It is because it is old legacy unmaintained code which is rarely used and which has a large attack surface.

XSLT is not going away, it is only in-browser XSLT which is removed. If you are happy with XSLT there is no need to abandon it. Just perform the transformation on the backend.

> XHTML was dropped in favor of HTML5 and XSLT was pretty much useless after that

Client-side XSLT was always pretty useless, but I dont see what HTML5 has to do with it?

The only real use case for client-side XSLT was for styling/layout back before CSS became widely supported. Improvements in CSS support made XSLT unnecessary.

> A HTML parser can become a XML parser by disabling a bunch of special-features

Even if this was true it would still increase complexity to have two parsing modes compared to just a html parser.

The low barrier to authoring was very important. No tools needed except notepad and a browser. Syntax easy to understand and write by hand.

But I don’t think the ambiguous html parsing made it easier. If anything it made it more difficult since you had to test in multiple browsers. Eg a table which was not properly closed would render in IE but not render in Netscape.