Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eljimmy 1906 days ago
Viewing the source of that webpage really takes you back. Plain old HTML. It's nostalgic beauty.

I recently fixed up an old 486 I purchased off eBay but it was bittersweet when I managed to get it connected to the 'net. Most websites were inaccessible due to the lack of support for today's encryption protocols, those that were had numerous JavaScript issues.
4 comments
tyingq 1906 days ago
I do appeciate some of it, but I don't miss this type of thing:

  <font size="5" color="#9400d3">
Though I understand why they are doing it in this case.
link
eljimmy 1905 days ago
Definitely was a lot of work without CSS.

The <table> layouts are definitely not missed by me.

link
mikepurvis 1906 days ago
Were you just using the browser/OS it came with, I guess like Windows 3.1 or 95?

Given their well-publicized insistence on building for a ton of obscure arches, I'd expect you could run modern Debian on such a machine no problem, with a modern web browser. Might be a little slow, especially if you stick with the original disk, but should be perfectly usable.

link
duskwuff 1906 days ago
> I'd expect you could run modern Debian on such a machine no problem...

Nope. Current builds of i386 Debian require a Pentium Pro or later -- I believe it's because they're compiled with the CMOV instruction, which wasn't present in the Pentium or earlier.

link
mikepurvis 1906 days ago
Ah, good point. Looks like Debian Jessie might have worked for it? In any case, distrowatch suggests a few others like Alpine and TinyCore that might have the proper support.
link
eljimmy 1905 days ago
Yeah I had installed Windows 3.1 and tried IE and Netscape Navigator Gold.

Linux might be a whole other battle to get working but might be a fun project to attempt.

link
anthk 1905 days ago
Try NetBSD with Lynx. OpenSSL will last several seconds, but it will work.
link
dheera 1906 days ago
Except this bullshit:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

    <html>
Back in the day, you only needed:

    <html>
link
majewsky 1906 days ago
Nitpick 1: That DTD is for HTML 2.0, which was published in 1995. If that does not qualify as "back in the day", I don't know what does.

Nitpick 2: <meta> goes inside <html> (inside <head>, really).

Nitpick 3: The <meta> tag is only a band-aid for shitty webhosting where you cannot access the webserver config to make it send the correct Content-Type in the actual HTTP response headers. The modern <!DOCTYPE html> instead implies a default of UTF-8 which works well for most.

link
skymt 1906 days ago
Nitpick nitpick: the html doctype doesn't imply UTF-8. Valid modern HTML documents must be encoded using UTF-8, but the standard also requires that the encoding be specified somehow.

> The Encoding standard requires use of the UTF-8 character encoding and requires use of the "utf-8" encoding label to identify it... If an HTML document does not start with a BOM, and its encoding is not explicitly given by Content-Type metadata, and the document is not an iframe srcdoc document, then the encoding must be specified using a meta element with a charset attribute or a meta element with an http-equiv attribute in the Encoding declaration state.

<https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#charac...>

link
jhgb 1906 days ago
Don't you only need

    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html>
these days? That's slightly worse but not terribly so IMO.
link
dheera 1906 days ago
Oh I actually quoted the website's source. They have that DTD meta crap in there.

But I think you can just do <html> nowadays and it empirically just works. Seriously, screw the anti-DRY people that want me to put some !DOCTYPE or xmlns tags with some W3C links or some DTD nonsense inside ... I should only have to specify "html" exactly once, no more.

If I had designed the spec I would have just made it

    <html version="4.0">
    <html version="5.0">
    <html version="5.1">
Incredibly more readable, and memorizable. A markup language (literally), by virtue of being a markup language, should not be impossible to memorize. Making scary strings like "-//W3C///DTD" part of the spec is counterproductive.
link
skymt 1906 days ago
You don't even need <html>. <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-ht...>

This is a valid HTML5 document:

    <!doctype html>
    <title>This is valid!</title>
    <p>Really, it's valid!
Paste it into the validator yourself if you don't believe me: <https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea>
link
tannhaeuser 1906 days ago
That's SGML tag inference at work (theoretically at least, since browsers have HTML parsing rules hardcoded). SGML knows, by the DOCTYPE declaration, that the document must start with an "html" element, so it infers it if it isn't there. Next, by the content model declared for the "html" element (normally obtained via the ugly public identifier that sibling comments complain about), a "head" element is expected, so SGML infers it as well if it's declared omissible, and so on.
link
masswerk 1905 days ago
In the "old days", web pages were often just the bare content (no html, head, body containers, no DOCTYPE declaration). A few sites also featured just the body tag (and respective content) for setting the background attribute for the page background color.

E.g., this is the entire code of Netscape's first home page:

    <TITLE>Welcome to Mosaic Communications Corporation!</TITLE>
    <CENTER>
    <A HREF="MCOM/index2.html"><IMG SRC="MCOM/images/mcomwelcome1.gif" BORDER=1></A>
    <H3>
    <A HREF="MCOM/index2.html">Click on the Image or here to advance</A>
    </H3>
    </CENTER>
http://home.mcom.com/
link
dheera 1905 days ago
I LOVE <center> and still use it sometimes because it's too goddamn complicated to center anything days.

"margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;" what the F???

"width:500px;margin-left:-250px;left:50%;" what the #$#$@?

Are they kidding?

link
jhgb 1906 days ago
Wow, I didn't actually know that. That feels...so dirty!
link
zczc 1906 days ago
Also utf-8 (or any Unicode) wasn't supported by most (all?) Netscape versions. Falling back to default Latin1 works with English text though.
link
chungy 1906 days ago
Try browservice: https://github.com/ttalvitie/browservice
link