hi, anyone else experiencing issues with discourse backed sites?

the couple ones I checked right now are as usual with noscript: they load, but Atwood's "IE6-level" CSS revert keyword means overflow is left at hidden

hm, for me it is unscrollable :/

e.g. discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/amdg…nit-on-5-19-8-works-on-5-19-6/75827

onnly way to move around there is with caret browsing

hrosik: javascript:(void(function(){s=document.createElement("style");st=document.createTextNode("html,*{overflow:unset!important;}");s.appendChild(st);document.head.appendChild(s);document.body.appendChild(s);}()))

quick and dirty, bookmarklet to add a style to override the overflow properties.

if unscrollable is the only thing you get, something like that might be enough, if the list of sites you browse that rely on discourse is small, you can add something to userContent.css too

the problem is their noscript style, supposedly to make it scrollable, relies on "revert"

which in turn IIRC is implemented using the rust styling code

njsg: thanks for the pointer!

njsg: re rust styling code - meaning this is something SM doesn't have (yet)?

<rant>anyway, would I really be asking too much to use plain old (X)HTML? Are really megabytes of javascript framework that generates what could easily be done once a comment is added (and the associated wasted energy) needed to display and navigate a comment thread?</rant>

Push! Things! Forward!

it's like the folks that encourage using COMPILERS to make websites!

like, author your site in some weird language, run Magic Web Compiler™, and get something that resembles HTML+CSS

at best that's all you get (like those static site generators like Hugo), and you're good to go

at worst you end turning something obscure into a JS framework hellstew that won't degrade grafecully

--gracefully

<hrosik> anyway, would I really be asking too much to use plain old (X)HTML? [...] Yes. Unless I am in charge.. Vote Tobin.. You could do a lot worse! :P

tomman: know how you do a static site generator? have php do it and just .. save the output and boom static site.. HELL many early perl and php systems merely wrote out to disk..

that's so convoluted that might have a chance to stick... in 2030 :D

in the context of levels of survival one is prepared to accept.. is small dynamic control panel but system craps out static pages to a cdn backed server.. keeping active server code where it needs to be.. not just shoving everything to the webclient but respecting the world wide web

New theory: nobody does server-side rendering anymore and push everything to be rendered on the client with tons of icky JS toxins because we're in a Serverless™ world

can't really do server-side without a server, amirite? /s

besides that all isn't something people(tm) do they pay some fuckin domain hussler to fill out a limited wysiwyg webapp that writes their website for them.. like a front page via microsoft word if it actually worked worth a crap.. but of course still mediocre today

or just use discord youtube twitch bluesky and facebook

and not have a web zone

how the HELL are you supposed to be able to get pizza rolls via people emailing your web zone if you ain't got one

nuuummmbbberrr fffooouuurr

err

I don't have fond memories of MS Office generated HTML

Word 97 required a wizard for that and the results were... not great. But then the Internet back then was... not great either :D

i used hotdog professional originally

Word 2000 generated... that hodgepodge of custom XML namespace vomit that also included VML

then went frontpage 2000 then dreamweaver then notepad++

suppose i used composer for a minute

too

but you know me.. All about that navigator

Eventually when I jumped ship to OpenOffice/LibreOffice, those generated more abominations, but at least it was standard HTML... that rendered poorly everywhere :D

i still run office 2003.. well i did until i went linux.. suppose i still do in a vm

for that you want an addon called Writer2XHTML, which generates 1) cleaner, proper XHTML, and 2) tons of redundant CSS rules that require 1-2 hours of work to simplify them

i still use LO Writer with that addon to pre-author reports for our webapps at work (that are eventually supposed to generate PDFs)

model the report in Writer, export it as XHTML, cleanup all that dodgy CSS, import it into your server-side framework, put the magic tags to output actual content, and pass the output HTML through a HTML to PDF filger

i wish seamonkey was a development/office/communications/web suite but those other things are not in the navigator.. in a PERFECT WORLD SeaMonkey would basically be an operating environment

boom, reports~!

like i could just have a window manager and seamonkey and that is your system.. that was the PROPER FUTURE

make no mistake

hrosik: in this case, I think the problem might be that whoever wrote the noscript code doesn't know the requirements for that code

hrosik: as in, discourse does try to work, at least for reading, with JS disabled, but does so in a way that requires that feature.

tomman: my experience is that MSO HTML output tended to try to replicate inner workings of their formats, which tended to be poor for webpages

not that e.g. word content couldn't use html-like markup, their users probably don't use styles as much as they should

njsg: that was a often quoted advantage because you could take said MSO HTML, load it back in Word (or whatever) and edit it back like if it was a native doc

without losing the original format

nsITobin: yes but SeaMonkey would then need (1) LaTeX support (2) a LISP

but I guess JS is quite lispy already

if i want to have seamonkey on my new slowly materalizing distro i will have to build rust and cargo my self.. which may be beneficial later on

nsITobin: web browser and window manager sounds ChromeOS-ish

... back to the world of javascript frameworks of frameworks, where security is a nightmare and performance a wild dream

hrosik: i didn't say it was original.. in fact it is original.. because I had the idea of a XUL powered desktop environment based on some speculation netscape would make a web shell like IE for windows..

so basically

it's my second generation idea

while chromeos is third to fourth generation

doesn't matter everything we all have come up with you me seamonkey mozilla opera google apple.. it all came out of extrapolations or interpetations of microsoft research and early rushed failed microsoft products and initiatives..

even linux is echoing Microsoft not the old grand unix os's

I see..oh well, as one of my colleagues once said "having good genes doesn't mean you won't get hit by a bus" :)

and micrsoft? trying to incorperate linux in as a bait and switch

hrosik: indeed

... wonder when that bus will find Moonchild..

since 2014 there is a bus chasing him

according to mozillazine

also hrosik consider if mozilla had gone with a xul desktop os.. and then created a mobile enabled incarnation of that it might have worked much better than Microsoft creating a phone os and then making their desktop just like it

and we may have more capable mobile devices

by now

that are supplements not replacements for laptops and desktops

nsITobin: did you say "KaiOS"?

no i said a desktop os powered by xul

why didn't mozilla ever develop a solid xul ide for working on mozilla and extensions and shit

why didn't mozilla make an office suite

to do it NOW

in today's world

.. i dunno

there would be a way

nsITobin: you know who'd be perhaps a good choice to ask that question to?

and I totally expect the answer to be "no, Mozilla *did* work on an OS/productivity suite/..., it just was never released" or the like

njsg: ?

who?

nsITobin: hint: he has blocked you

he wouldn't answer me anyway