April 26th, 2015

100 words 035

I went spelunking down the caves of the web’s history today. I went digging through the original proposal that Tim Berners-Lee presented to his boss, the late Mike Sendall. I explored the design issues that were raised in the creation the World Wide Web. I rifled through the initial vocabulary of HTML. I watched a video from the web’s twentieth anniversary featuring Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau, and Jean-François Groff.

I was able to do all this because my computer was connected to the internet and I was running a piece of software that understood HTTP, URLs, and HTML’s A element.


Contrary to popular belief, web standards aren’t created by a shadowy cabal and then handed down to browser makers to implement. Quite the opposite. Browser makers come together in standards bodies and try to come to an agreement about how to collectively create and implement standards. That keeps them very busy. They don’t tend to get out very often, but when they do, the browser/standards makers have one message for developers: “We want to make your life better, so tell us what you want and that’s what we’ll work on!”

In practice, this turns out not to be the case.

Case in point: responsive images. For years, this was the number one feature that developers were crying out for. And yet, the standards bodies—and, therefore, browser makers—dragged their heels. First they denied that it was even a problem worth solving. Then they said it was simply too hard. Eventually, thanks to the herculean efforts of the Responsive Images Community Group, the browser makers finally began to work on what developers had been begging for.

Now that same community group is representing the majority of developers once again. Element queries—or container queries—have been top of the wish list of working devs for quite a while now. The response from browser makers is the same as it was for responsive images. They say it’s simply too hard.

Here’s a third example: web components. There are many moving parts to web components, but one of the most exciting to developers who care about accessibility and backwards-compatibility is the idea of extending existing elements:

It’s my opinion that, for as long as there is a dependence on JS for custom elements, we should extend existing elements when writing custom elements. It makes sense for developers, because new elements have access to properties and methods that have been defined and tested for many years; and it makes sense for users, as they have fallback in case of JS failure, and baked-in accessibility fundamentals.

So instead of having to create a whole new element from scratch like this:

<taco-button>Click me!</taco-button>

…you could piggy-back on an existing element like this:

<button is="taco-button">Click me!</button>

That way, you get the best of both worlds: the native semantics of button topped with all the enhancements you want to add with your taco-button custom element. Brilliant! Github is using this to extend the time element, for example.

I’m not wedded to the is syntax, but I do think it’s vital that there is some declarative mechanism to extend existing elements instead of creating every custom element from scratch each time.

Now it looks like that’s the bit of web components that isn’t going to make the cut. Why? Because browser makers say it’s simply too hard.

As Bruce points out, this is in direct conflict with the design principles that are supposed to be driving the creation and implementation of web standards.

It probably wouldn’t bother me so much except that browser makers still trot out the party line, “We want to hear what developers want!” Their actions demonstrate that this claim is somewhat hollow.

I don’t hold out much hope that we’ll get the ability to extend existing elements for web components. I think we can still find ways to piggy-back on existing semantics, but it’s going to take more work:

<taco-button><button>Click me!</button></taco-button>

That isn’t very elegant and I can foresee a lot of trickiness trying to sift the fallback content (the button tags) from the actual content (the “Click me!” text).

But I guess that’s what we’ll be stuck with. The alternative is simply too hard.

Halfway through reading an article, I genuinely forgot whether I was on Medium or The Pastry Box.

I’m grateful for my browser’s URL bar.

April 25th, 2015

100 words 034

It was a busy week with lots of commuting up and down to London, so I’ve been looking forward to a weekend of unwinding.

Jessica and I like to spend our Saturday afternoons doing our shopping for the weekend, planning out some nice leisurely meals. Today we went down to the Open Market, a recently-renovated collection of stalls under one roof selling local produce and goods. The market is also home to an excellent Greek café, where we had lunch.

I guess it’s part of the gentrification of the London Road area. If this is gentrification, bring it on.

Faked potatoes—they taste like baked potatoes (with sour cream and chives) but they’re not baked.

Faked potatoes—they taste like baked potatoes (with sour cream and chives) but they’re not baked.

Mark at 36 Tidy Street, Brighton posts handy hints in his window for spotting the ISS. Thanks, Mark!

Mark at 36 Tidy Street, Brighton posts handy hints in his window for spotting the ISS.

Thanks, Mark!

April 24th, 2015

100 words 033

Charlotte came up with a nifty trick that combines two different techniques she’s been working with.

The first building block is the pattern of using checkboxes, labels, and the :checked pseudo-class to create progressive disclosure toggles without JavaScript. There’s just one caveat with that technique though—the item being toggled must appear after the trigger label in the source order of the markup.

Enter the second building block: flexbox. With flexbox, we’re no longer at the mercy of the source order in our markup. By using flex-direction: column-reverse, the progressive disclosure trigger can be displayed after the item being toggled.

On an overcrowded standing-room-only train, sitting in first class without a first class ticket …just like Liberty on the barricades.

If you consider that whistling is a means of attracting attention, then isn’t whistling at your desk the equivalent of shouting “HEY! YOU!”?