(I don't think this detracts from such sites, to be clear; they're adopting new technologies where they provide practical benefits to the reader because many indieweb proponents are pushing it as a progressive, rather than reactionary, praxis.)
The CSS on the page is only to make modern browsers behave like old ones in order to match the rendering.
The guestbook has some javascript if you notice to defeat spam: https://bootstra386.com/guestbook.html but it's the kind of javascript that netscape 2.0 can run without issue.
Are they going out of their way to recreate an aesthetic that was originally the easiest thing to create given the language specs of the past, or is there something about this look and feel that is so fundamental to the idea of making websites that basically anything that looks like any era or variety of HTML will converge on it?
For example, I do this with my website. I receive comments via email (with the sender’s addresses hashed). Each page/comment-list/comment has its own rss feed that people can “subscribe” to. This allows you to get notified when someone responds to a comment you left, or comments on a page. But all notifications are opt-in and require no login because your rss reader is fetching the updates.
Since I’m the moderator of my site, I subscribe to the “all-comments” feed and get notified upon every submission. I then go review the comment and then the site rebuilds. There’s no logins or sign ups. Commenting is just pushing and notifications just pulling.
example https://spenc.es/updates/posts/4513EBDF/
I plan on open sourcing the commenting aspect of this (it’s called https://r3ply.com) so this doesn’t have to be reinvented for each website, but comments are just one part of the whole system:
The web is the platform. RSS provides notifications (pull). Emailing provides a way to post (push) - and moderate - content. Links are for sharing and are always static (never change or break).
The one missing thing is like a “pending comments” cache, for when you occasionally get HN like traffic and need comments to be temporarily displayed immediately. I’m building this now but it’s really optional and would be the only thing in this system that even requires JS or SSR.
I like your thinking. Beautiful website, by the way!
https://portal.mozz.us/gopher/gopher.somnolescent.net/9/w2kr...
with these NEW values in about:config set to true:
security.ssl3.ecdhe_ecdsa_aes_128_gcm_sha256
security.ssl3.ecdhe_rsa_aes_128_gcm_sha256
security.ssl3.ecdh_ecdsa_rc4_128_sha
security.ssl3.ecdh_rsa_rc4_128_sha
security.ssl3.ecdhe_ecdsa_rc4_128_sha
security.ssl3.ecdhe_rsa_rc4_128_sha
security.ssl3.rsa_rc4_128_md5
security.ssl3.rsa_rc4_128_shaIsn't that https://subreply.com/ ?
What do you mean by that? Especially the "social" part?
(For the youth, this is basically what Yahoo was, originally; it was _ten years_ after Yahoo started before it had its own crawler-based search engine, though it did use various third parties after the first few years.)
(I recall too that when Yahoo did add their own web crawler, all web devs did was add "Pamela Anderson" a thousand times in as meta tags in order to get their pages ranked higher. Early SEO.)
2010 archive of dmoz: https://web.archive.org/web/20100227212554/http://www.dmoz.o...
We're always discussing something along "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" in the context of social media, yet now we're presented a solution and criticize that it's not free.
You can also roll your own webring/directory for free on your ISP's guest area (if they still offer that) and there's no significant network effect to url.town yet that would make you miss out if you don't pay.
What is (was) it? I can't find anything with a search (too many unrelated results).
X is just one cappuccino, Y is just 3.5 bagels, Z costs not more than a pint, A costs almost as much as a nice meal … and so on. God's sake! :)
(Whether for this or comparable projects.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20191117161738/http://shirky.com...
(As a bit of meta, one would notice how in making this argument it itself has to use the classifying approach, but that does not defeat the point and is rather more of a pre-requisite for communicating it.)
Notably, the classifying mode was shown in other animals (as this is common to probably every creature with two eyes and a brain) to engage when seeking food or interacting with friendly creatures. This highlights its ultimate purposes—consumption and communication, not truth.
In a healthy human both parts act in tandem by selectively inhibiting each other; I believe in later sections he goes a bit into the dangers of over-prioritizing exclusively the classifying part all the time.
Due to the unattainability of comprehensive and lossless classification, presenting information in ways that allows for coexistence of different competing taxonomies (e.g., tagging) is perhaps a worthy compromise: it still serves the communication requirement, but without locking into a local optimum.
[0] I don’t recall off the top of my head exactly how Iain gets there (there is plenty of material), but similar arguments were made elsewhere—e.g., Clay Shirky’s points about the inherent lossiness of any ontology and the impossible requirement to be capable of mind reading and fortune telling, or I personally would extrapolate a point from the incompleteness theorem: we cannot pick apart and formally classify a system which we ourselves are part of in a way that is complete and provably correct.
Information, is basically is about relating something to other known things. A closer relation is being interpreted as location proximity in a taxonomy space.
The US Library of Congress is an interesting case study to my mind. The original classification scheme came from Thomas Jefferson's private library (he donated the collection to the US Government after the original Library of Congress was burned in 1812. The classification has been made more detailed (though so far as I know the original 20 alphabetic top-level classes remain as Jefferson established them), and there's been considerable re-adjustment, as knowledge, mores, and the world around us have changed. The classification has its warts, but it's also very much a living process, something I feel is greatly underappreciated.
At the same time, the Library also has its equivalent of keywords, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Whilst a book or work will have one and only one Classification assigned to it (the Classification serving essentially as an index and retrieval key), there may be multiple Subject Headings given (though typically only a few, say 3--6 for a given work). These are used to cross-reference works within the subject index.
The Subject Headings themselves date to 1898, and there is in fact an article on the ... er ... subject, "The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays" (2009), I'm just learning as I write this comment:
Anyone with an account already that wants to take requests for URLs to add?
(Hey, charge $1 a request and you should be able to break even on your $20 domain purchase before the day is up.)
I'll take requests, but I don't guarantee I'll add just anything.
... Possibly I'm missing something, but currently it has four categories under "Hobbies"; folklore, Pokemon, travel and yarn craft. Are you suggesting that if someone added "car stuff", that would be, well, basically complete, the big five hobbies represented?
It's clearly extremely new and has almost no content as yet.
Times is really not adapted for the web and is particularly bad on low-resolution screens. How many computer terminals used Times for anything but Word processing?
Verdana was released in 1996 — is that too recent?
Also, the website styles don't specify font-family at all, so you are complaining about your own browser defaults.
Good pickup on the font being the default browser choice, I didn't notice that!