???
I think I was on Win95... ?
https://www.wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/content.php?theme=3&music=2&url=www.freebsd.org ?
???
I think I was on Win95... ?
"Modern HTML" is a lot better than the 1990s version.I do not really care I would bury modern HMTL for ever...
"Modern HTML" is a lot better than the 1990s version.
What will the next thread be? "What's your favorite color?!"
"Modern HTML" is a lot better than the 1990s version.
What will the next thread be? "What's your favorite color?!"
Well, I remember compiling Mosaic, and wondering how I might best use it (apart from reading the Mosaic documentation, which was resident as HTML files in the file system). Getting an Internet connection helped in that quest, but that came several years later..."Modern HTML" is a lot better than the 1990s version.
Brave, but I haven't been able to get it installed on FreeBSD. So, I am using my second best, which is Firefox.What is you preferred internet-browser?
Both, color and colour are correct. Color is used in the USA and colour is used in the UK and on most parts of the world.How about "What's your favourite way of spelling colour?"
"Modern HTML" is a lot better than the 1990s version.
What will the next thread be? "What's your favorite color?!"
This has nothing to do with HTML standards. Blame the developers of those websites, not the technologies they used.I have bunch of old laptops that can't open the majority because: trackers, misuse of javascript, excess of CSS, then we have a thousand of HTTP requests every second, and websites are bombarding by CDNs which should make content faster while instead inject other shit!
This has nothing to do with HTML standards. Blame the developers of those websites, not the protocols they used.
linuxulator-how-to-install-brave-linux-app-on-freebsd-13-0.78879Brave, but I haven't been able to get it installed on FreeBSD. So, I am using my second best, which is Firefox.
True enough but I notice some of the worst web developers jump on new gimmicks as *soon* as they come out. The growing HTML specs seem to nurture this kind of "greedy fat kid" behavior.This has nothing to do with HTML standards. Blame the developers of those websites, not the technologies they used.
Html,xhtml is something, but javascript is a different beast.
The topic was HTML and JavaScript has nothing to do with HTML.Unless you succumb to the mandatory JavaScript support.
And you still can't because there is nothing in HTML to do that.the whole point of HTML5 was resolving the failure point of Flash/Silverlight to inject DRM into the HTML...
A lot of people will agree with you. Today you find a lot of people trying to replicate XHTML but call it React and Angular and other things. XHTML was built into the browser and you could do what you wanted with it. React, et al, you do what they say you can do and how to do it.Also in my humble opinion XHTML was better than HTML5
And can't even follow the standard to boot.I was referring the way the majority misuses it!
And you still can't because there is nothing in HTML to do that.
Yeah, this is really annoying. Everyone and their mothers absolutely have to use JS and it's the root cause of why so many websites and web browsers are so heavy these days that you need gigs of RAM.Sure, but "today" we referred to HTML5 as HTML5+JS+CSS3, once we used the terminology AJAX; without JS many website don't work.