@kicks Hello, Kicks. Replying to the comment in this post in praise of creating webpages in plain HTML/CSS. Boy has the Internet come full circle – back to the status quo of the early 2000s (so not that big a circle). I’m currently playing with Hugo static site generator, and at the back of my mind lingers the thought about whether it will give me more trouble than not in the long-term. HTML really is the elegant KISS method at the end of the day. Thanks for highlighting alternative perspectives in webdesign!
Hey, Vega! You know, it’s very strange to me that static sites have become so
arcane. For a brief time, Movable Type made them the dominant style of blog. I’d
really like to see a return to something like that. But simpler, perhaps.
I rather envy the freeform HTML sites. I really miss server-side includes as
well—that seemed like a kind of ideal form, since you could do more complex
things with plain HTML. I kind of wish modern HTML would let us do HTML includes
without needing to resort to JavaScript. It seems strange that HTML didn’t go
that direction.
At any rate, thanks for saying hi. Yours is a blog I enjoying reading from time
to time.
This post accepts webmentions. Do you have the URL to your post?
You may also leave an anonymous comment. All comments are moderated.
Reply: Pure HTML All Over Again
Hey, Vega! You know, it’s very strange to me that static sites have become so arcane. For a brief time, Movable Type made them the dominant style of blog. I’d really like to see a return to something like that. But simpler, perhaps.
I rather envy the freeform HTML sites. I really miss server-side includes as well—that seemed like a kind of ideal form, since you could do more complex things with plain HTML. I kind of wish modern HTML would let us do HTML includes without needing to resort to JavaScript. It seems strange that HTML didn’t go that direction.
At any rate, thanks for saying hi. Yours is a blog I enjoying reading from time to time.