[camillomiller]

I dunno, it wants to challenge our dependence on javascript and then to make it work it needs to inject a “back” behavior into a normal link?

Js and fallbacks for menus is a solved issue. this is just another form of LLM dunning krueger derangement where you think the LLM-suggested solution is novel because you haven’t encountered it before, or because you fundamentally don’t understand the underlying problems that we have already solved.

[sheept]

Yeah, I don't think the menu should've been a separate page. It can be made JavaScript-less as a dialog opened by the popover HTML attributes,[0] and the escape key would be able to close it.

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...

[drawfloat]

Could be achieved with a checkbox input and a hidden div too

[extra88]

That's less accessible and capable than the popover / dialog solution.

[nchmy]

I'm not at all against using some js for the menu, but a native dialog or popover is definitely a nice idea here.

[CraigJPerry]

I guess it doesn't have to use JavaScript for the back behavior. It could use a server-side rendered referrer if that hasn't been stripped by the browser?

You say that JavaScript and fallbacks for menus is a solved issue but the number of menus that are just an absolute clusterfuck is ridiculous on the web today. They're really not a solved issue, Progressive enhancement is hard to do. Genuinely hard in some cases.

On balance, while this is not without flaws, it's interesting. Accessibility, deep linking, reduction in cognitive load for the developer. There's some merit here.

[OuterVale]

I'm unsure why you think this was an LLM-suggested solution.

[danaris]

...because the opening line of the blog post says he's been "building websites with LLMs", and then attempts to cutely redefine that abbreviation as "Lots of Little htMl pages" in a parenthetical.

It's, um. Not the best kind of communication, and very easily leads to this kind of misunderstanding.

[snowe2010]

Why do you think this is LLM?