Rendered at 07:09:47 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
dajonker 13 hours ago [-]
Popover, dialog, invoker commands, our entire production app uses these everywhere and it works really well! The fact that dialogs and popovers are rendered on the "top layer" and that nested popovers are also automatically stacked on top of each other and have 'cascading close' shows how well these standards were designed.
The only hard thing is still to position a popover near the element that triggers it, such as when you want to create a context menu that has to render above/below the button that triggered it. There is anchor positioning in CSS now but support is still limited and I find it hard to wrap my head around.
LLMs are also terrible at these new standards. If they even know about them, they often think they're not baseline yet and they have almost zero training data compared to the giant mountain of weird JS and CSS that people had to use before the introduction of these standards.
nozzlegear 12 hours ago [-]
> The only hard thing is still to position a popover near the element that triggers it, such as when you want to create a context menu that has to render above/below the button that triggered it. There is anchor positioning in CSS now but support is still limited and I find it hard to wrap my head around.
I was going to suggest anchor positioning. I found it difficult to wrap my head around too, but once it clicks it's pretty simple. As a bonus, you can use it to position many other things than just popovers.
alwillis 8 hours ago [-]
> LLMs are also terrible at these new standards. If they even know about them, they often think they're not baseline yet…
It doesn’t have to be that way.
You could create a Skill [1] that tells the agent to use modern css; the newer models like Opus 5 are probably much better with modern css.
Google released a set of skills at I/O called Modern Web Guidance [2] that steer coding agents to use modern css and best practices.
> The only hard thing is still to position a popover near the element that triggers it, such as when you want to create a context menu that has to render above/below the button that triggered it.
If you put something like this in your popover class, it will resolve to the button that called it when position-anchor is not set:
top: anchor(bottom);
I'm not sure how widely supported it is but I've been using it in Firefox/Chrome.
extra88 7 hours ago [-]
All current browsers support anchor positioning including popover buttons being the implicit anchor. However, the anchor positioning polyfill does not support this, it requires an explicit anchor-name.
Wowfunhappy 9 hours ago [-]
> LLMs are also terrible at these new standards. If they even know about them, they often think they're not baseline yet and they have almost zero training data compared to the giant mountain of weird JS and CSS that people had to use before the introduction of these standards.
I really wonder if AI coding is just going to lock us into 2024-ish era languages and libraries forever.
actionfromafar 9 hours ago [-]
At least one thing to hold the torrent of churn back just a little. Silver linings..
sublinear 9 hours ago [-]
Yes. The maintenance costs of these models are very high. Something's gotta give soon.
It's exactly like trying to acquire a bootleg of a movie, but all you can afford is a single blurry jpeg taken from the back row of a theater.
What's worse is you're an alien who wants to understand life on Earth by watching this single movie. That's how far away we are from AGI.
commandlinefan 11 hours ago [-]
> often think they're not baseline yet
I'm not an LLM, but that was my immediate thought - how new does a browser have to be to support these and which browsers am I excluding by using these features?
jxf 11 hours ago [-]
Support is pretty good in general for these. Click any of the element links in the article and you get taken to the support grid.
jmpeax 7 hours ago [-]
> LLMs are also terrible at these new standards.
Skill issue? I mean, I wonder if adding a skill to use these newer standards can push it over the edge from the crappy JS it was trained on.
sublinear 13 hours ago [-]
I'm curious how many people are involved in the design of your app and what their concerns are.
Testing for accessibility and on mobile devices has a tendency to derail the best intentions. What tools are you using for those concerns? I'm not asking because I need advice. I'm asking because I want to know what you or your team did.
vee-kay 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dematz 16 hours ago [-]
This comment by yurishimo should not be [dead], imo
>Just a heads up but datalist is not really a great solution if you need a strong contract. The user can still type whatever they want into the field and there is no fuzzy filtering or typo mitigation. Once you add those requirements, a library that gives you a more fully featured combobox is likely going to make a lot of sense in your project.
It is true! HTML can do a lot of cool stuff, it might get you 100% of the way depending on what you're doing. But if you have a lot of forms where users pick from a value set, and want to enforce no other strings and get a good search experience, datalist does not get you there.
yurishimo 13 hours ago [-]
Thanks for the vouch! The rest of the article was indeed good but I find a lot of value in hacker news comments precisely because someone comes back to the comments and lays out why what I just read might need a different perspective. If you just want to see cool stuff that a browser can technically do, we are all capable of reading the Chrome dev blog, but we come to HN for a wider perspective. Someone telling a war story about how some little tidbit came back to bite them is also valuable (imo).
honr 14 hours ago [-]
I mildly disagree. You still have to validate what the browser gives you. The user could have edited the "strong contract" using browser dev tools.
So, let the user type, then validate in javascript if you want instant feedback (by changing colors, say, to red / orange), but ideally don't fully block it from being seen by the server. And do the real validation on the server side. This is what I found to be fairly robust, while allowing mitigations if a bad rollout breaks something (delivering to clients is slower than updating something on the server side, most often).
jonahx 12 hours ago [-]
GP was addressing the client-side UX, not backend validation, which is an orthogonal concern.
11 hours ago [-]
yurishimo 13 hours ago [-]
Where did I say to forgo backend validation? Of course you validate on the backend as well, but the better UX would be to prevent the user from entering a bad value to begin with, assuming it fits within your team’s performance budget.
I’m not advocating for willy-nilly package inclusion, just highlighting a current shortcoming of datalist that is often not mentioned in these sorts of articles.
c-hendricks 14 hours ago [-]
That solves the validation portion, but not the rest of the UX issues
Gualdrapo 15 hours ago [-]
I seem to recall there was a proposal to add such thing to <select>s
bulder 15 hours ago [-]
I definitely remember seeing a post by a Chromium maintainer talking about starting development on a proof of concept implementation and surveying for semantics.
kotaKat 15 hours ago [-]
(iirc if you have [showdead] on you can click on the timestamp to the comment and will get a [vouch] option as a reverse-flag, fwiw. i see it and don't have showdead enabled, so enough people have re-vouched it!)
gulugawa 6 hours ago [-]
The field can be enhanced with JavaScript to support filtering or typo mitigation.
jamescun 16 hours ago [-]
I'm that minutia in your statistics that is still rocking NoScript in 2026, enabling JavaScript on a site-by-site basis, but this is increasingly difficult with the modern web.
Hopefully these and others modern HTML features gain adoption, along with realizing perhaps a Single Page Application isn't necessary in most instances.
I don't often have to write frontend code, but when I do, there is very little in terms of interactivity you cannot do with HTML these days, worst case a little sprinkle of something like HTMX.
bee_rider 15 hours ago [-]
Thank goodness you exist, the fingerprinters will be confused as to which one of the two of us went to their website!
jamescun 15 hours ago [-]
How? There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
Perz1val 14 hours ago [-]
How would you count?
steanne 14 hours ago [-]
"you don't have to, they'll tell you."
(+1)
jccalhoun 13 hours ago [-]
i'm right there with you!
AdieuToLogic 3 hours ago [-]
> I don't often have to write frontend code, but when I do, there is very little in terms of interactivity you cannot do with HTML these days, worst case a little sprinkle of something like HTMX.
And for some front-end form field validation in the spirit of htmx, ParsleyJS[0] is quite nice. Below is one way to enable the former to support the latter:
htmx.defineExtension (
'parsley-validation',
{
onEvent : function (name, evt) {
var allow = true;
if (name === 'htmx:load')
$(evt.target).parsley ();
else if (name === 'htmx:confirm') {
var theForm = $(evt.target).parsley ();
theForm.validationResult = allow = theForm.isValid ();
if (!allow)
evt.preventDefault ();
}
return allow;
}
}
)
Single page applications are one of the most anoying web patterns i know of. Please just let me have one page for each ting to do so i actually can bookmark it properly.
phyzix5761 15 hours ago [-]
Once backend and frontend became two separate teams frontend people didn't want to keep asking backend to make logic changes for state, so frontend took things into their own hands. The mistake was making it two separate teams.
tyre 14 hours ago [-]
This is possible and, in my experience building them, the norm. SPAs have routers and update navigation state, including history for browser Back/Forward
gunalx 14 hours ago [-]
Yes true. But also way to often neglected.
preg_match 6 hours ago [-]
Right but most of the time they don’t work. For example, LinkedIn, and instagram. I understand they have apps but… come on.
ThunderSizzle 14 hours ago [-]
Ive made SPAs in Blazor that make it a point to update the URL whenever a "navigation" occurs. I also made it a point to ensure refreshing or loading the URL restored the state.
It's a small problem compared to the ease of use for development you can gain via Blazor, so I don't see any reason not to solve it.
culi 14 hours ago [-]
On the other hand, converting a SPA to a PWA is often a breeze
michaelchisari 8 hours ago [-]
The View Transition API makes this even more viable.
One thing you notice running NoScript is how prevalent Google is.
Even if a site doesn’t monetize with Google Ads, there’s a decent chance it’s pulling a script from ajax.googleapis.com, and Google still knows that you visited the site from the Referer of the script download.
edparcell 11 hours ago [-]
I got frustrated with sites that should just be documents bolting on a pile of javascript libraries, third-party requests etc so I made a standard for sites that are just documents, and wrote a checker for document-only pages. For SSL, the thing that actually changed the web was browsers flagging non-SSL - probably similar is needed here. https://certifiedweb10.org/ if you're interested.
zelphirkalt 14 hours ago [-]
This is part of how I judge how well made or how shitty a website is. If it requires scripts from a dozen third parties, then it usually sucks and one can easily recognize when not much effort has been put into making it.
nozzlegear 12 hours ago [-]
Does HTMX work with NoScript? Doesn't it require JS?
ipsod 12 hours ago [-]
Nope, doesn't work. Doesn't stop you from making it a PWA, though.
djoldman 15 hours ago [-]
oh my. Looks like NoScript is way better than what I've been using. Thanks!
I'm currently in the process of taking a lot of risk rewriting a large-ish app that I maintain to fully eliminate the use of frontend frameworks (and the larger JS ecosystem in general) and to switch to simple SSR + semantic HTML and CSS.
Using this tiny lib [2: shameless plug] I wrote specifically incorporating the "HTML Can Do That"-style realisations going into the big rewrite.
I'd really wish I could force ISO format for the date input as the current "platform native" is confusing for some users when the OS use a different language than the web page that is shown.
For some multi-country companies it makes sense to have all admin pages in English no matter the underlying OS language. Imagine sending a screenshot where the OS date format is different from what everybody else expects from an English page.
crote 13 hours ago [-]
Alternatively: have the <time> element actually do something by hooking it up to the new Moment API and having it display the specified timestamp in the user's locale. That would at least provide an easy way to have the input format and the display format be the same.
But yes, there's also a very good argument to be made in favor of having such localized elements follow the content's `lang` attribute - potentially with a `lang="initial"` to reset it to "whatever the user has configured for their OS".
hk1337 14 hours ago [-]
I'd be okay with regional date format for the user but it always submits as ISO 8601 date format.
crote 13 hours ago [-]
That's already how it works, is it not?
jimmygrapes 13 hours ago [-]
Dealing with this right now. Got some people whose devices are set to display dates as dd/mm/yyyy and the janky pay submission form records it verbatim rather than translate to its internal mm/dd/yyyy format. If it's invalid date it will reject, but a guy submitted for August 4 and got denied for the system recording it as April 8. Spreadsheet MS Forms nonsense. Nobody cares.
hk__2 15 hours ago [-]
Related to this, I’d love that HTML natively support sortable tables. This is a common need but every single time I have to reimplement it.
jwr 12 hours ago [-]
This is… not obvious. It's only easy if you want the simplistic approach of sorting lexicographically or numerically. But in more complex tables, you will often encounter cases where the data representation for sorting is different from data representation for display.
Of course most JavaScript-based tables get this wrong, too.
hk__2 11 hours ago [-]
You could have a `sortkey` attribute, a bit like <option> that has a `value` attribute in case the value you want is different from the value you display.
dansalvato 10 hours ago [-]
I had always thought that table sorting seems like the perfect job for HTML, given its data-driven nature, and the possibility of implementing sort information into the attributes of table cell elements.
But thinking about it: Is there a precedent for HTML to be able to include information that instructs the device to present the DOM out of order? Maybe it's out of scope for HTML to have information about presentation order, when the order is supposed to be implied strictly by the DOM hierarchy itself.
Of course, CSS can visually reorder stuff (e.g. `order` on flex/grid items), but MDN has accessibility warnings regarding the use of `order` and visually presenting the data in an order not reflected by the DOM. So, maybe sorting is best done by reordering the DOM after all.
extra88 7 hours ago [-]
CSS now also has `reading-flow` to instruct the browser to change the reading order to match the visual order created by Flex or Grid. Unfortunately, not all browsers support it and it has some limitations.
ndriscoll 10 hours ago [-]
XSL has sorting, so kind of, depending on which document you're referring to when you say DOM.
cosmic_cheese 6 hours ago [-]
And related to that, native cell recycling for long lists would be nice, particularly with cases where the cells are on the heavy side.
Yes, it can be done with JS, but nothing is going to beat the browser engine for frequent DOM manipulation of that sort. It's also just one less dependency to have to pull in.
hahn-kev 14 hours ago [-]
I feel like there's so few times it would actually work how I want it that it seems like there's little point.
wild_egg 15 hours ago [-]
You want client side table sorting?
It's really easy to do this with server rendered HTML. Put a link with the sort param in the column headers and be done.
mxuribe 14 hours ago [-]
I used to do this in the early 2000s! Some folks back then would ask whether i was afraid that clicking a link (which loads a "new" web page) would slow things down and create an awful experience for users...but, my team and I would really focus on keeping web pages slim/lightweight to begin with...so it rarely was a problem. I don't think we were geniuses or anything like that, but keeping things light (always and from the beginning) enabled us to "cheat" (like this "hack" of the links in the column headers) in ways that were beneficial but with very low risk. Sometimes it took an extra moment or two at the beginning of an effort...but it ALWAYS paid off down the road, and in many different ways.
wild_egg 14 hours ago [-]
It still works exceptionally well in 2026 and generally creates better and faster experiences than an SPA with far, far less code.
hk__2 11 hours ago [-]
You don’t need an SPA for that; Wikipedia has client-side sorted tables for example.
culi 14 hours ago [-]
I hate what it does to my back button
hnal943 13 hours ago [-]
HTMX is the solution
zarzavat 13 hours ago [-]
So instead of using JS to sort the table directly, now you make a JS fetch() request to sort the table?!
It does make sense in one situation, if the table is a large server-side paginated one and the sorting is really an ORDER BY clause. But for a basic table that fits entirely on the client, it doesn't make sense at all. There are tiny JS libraries that will make <table>s sortable when you add a particular class name.
everybodyknows 10 hours ago [-]
> tiny JS libraries that will make <table>s sortable
What are some good ones?
nozzlegear 12 hours ago [-]
Trading one javascript for another?
xboxnolifes 13 hours ago [-]
I want tables that can be sorted on multiple columns without triggering a page refresh on every click.
wild_egg 12 hours ago [-]
View Transitions are your friend
krapp 15 hours ago [-]
That's what javascript is supposed to be for. All of this is what javascript is supposed to be for.
HTML describes layout, CSS describes style, JS adds interactivity.
Want sortable tables? Get a jquery plugin and spend five minutes, done.
This was all solved a decade or more ago.
hk__2 11 hours ago [-]
> Want sortable tables? Get a jquery plugin and spend five minutes, done.
I want sortable tables without having to rely on a third-party plugin to a third-party library. HTML describes content, not just layout. It would be a `sortable` attribute on the table, just like you already have attributes that have nothing to do with layout such as `autocomplete` or `aria-*`.
krapp 11 hours ago [-]
Everyone already complains that browsers are too bloated and now you want to have every browser support sortable tables when a single, simple JS file would work?
ndriscoll 9 hours ago [-]
The overwhelming majority of web pages are static documents, and it's a document format, so basic document primitives make sense. Same with something like line charts or pie charts. Bloat is things like USB APIs that present obnoxious security surfaces.
ducktective 10 hours ago [-]
>single, simple JS file
It's all fine and dandy until marketing bros decide to shove all kinds of shady modals into that JS file. The JS side is not exclusive to trivial interactivity.
krapp 10 hours ago [-]
What "marketing bros?"
It's open source software. You can see what it does, and you just put it on your server. We're talking about pre NPM javascript here, no continuous deployment, everything is vendored and local and no one is going to change that file without your knowledge and permission. And if someone does, you have much bigger problems on your hands.
What you can't own and control is the browser vendors and how they choose to implement things, or not to. You can edit a JS file to your specific needs, but you're stuck with whatever the browser decides.
ducktective 5 hours ago [-]
My point was, people block js of websites by default. Why? Cause website devs abuse js and don't exclusively use it for basic interactivity of stuff like sorting table columns.
There is an incentive to use HTML for common interactivity purposes.
zephen 12 hours ago [-]
> HTML describes layout
News to me.
krapp 12 hours ago [-]
That's understandable, because almost no one actually works with HTML directly anymore, but it's true. HTML contains tags like <H> for headers, <p> for paragraphs, <br> for line breaks <pre> for prerendered text, <ol> and <ul> for ordered and unordered lists, <table> for tables as well as <main>,<div>,<header>,<section>,<nav>,<article>,<aside>,<summary> and <footer> to both explicitly and implicitly describe the layout of an HTML document. In fact, "HTML" itself is an acronym (HyperText Markup Language) in which the "Markup" describes the function of HTML to "mark up" text in a similar way that editors once did in the print industry, describing which parts of the text should be bold, italicized, etc. or divided up and in what way.
crab_galaxy 12 hours ago [-]
HTML describes the structure of a document, not really the layout.
If HTML had <inline> <block> <column> <row> or <grid> tags, sure. But CSS determines the layout via display/position properties.
krapp 11 hours ago [-]
<span> is inline
<div> is block
<table>,<tr> and <td> are your grid, row and column.
CSS improves on describing layout with positioning but HTML was still doing that before CSS even came along.
zephen 9 hours ago [-]
Thanks for the downvote, but you're wrong.
> explicitly and implicitly describe the layout of an HTML document.
No, this doesn't happen.
> In fact, "HTML" itself is an acronym (HyperText Markup Language)
Duh.
> in which the "Markup" describes the function of HTML to "mark up" text in a similar way that editors once did in the print industry, describing which parts of the text should be bold, italicized, etc. or divided up and in what way.
Which has fuck-all to do with the layout.
krapp 9 hours ago [-]
I didn't downvote you, and I'm not wrong. And all you're responding with is invective. Go touch grass and read a book. Bye.
zephen 8 hours ago [-]
> And all you're responding with is invective.
This statement is mendacious, at best. I have explained that HTML has fuck-all to do with layout. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Here, check out what the W3C has to say about it:
> Because HTML conveys meaning, rather than presentation, the same page can also be used by a small browser on a mobile phone, without any change to the page. ... But it goes further than just differences in screen size: the same page could equally be used by a blind user using a browser based around speech synthesis, which instead of displaying the page on a screen, reads the page to the user, e.g. using headphones. Instead of large text for the headings, the speech browser might use a different volume or a slower voice.
Also, check out the ACID series of specifications which require and always use CSS, because otherwise, there is no mandate on how a browser should display stuff.
And, just for completeness, here are a couple of quotes from Tim Berners-Lee:
> HTML should convey the structure of a hypertext document, but not details of its presentation. This was the only way to get it to display reasonably on any of a very wide variety of different screens and sizes of paper.
> The separation of presentation from structure is a fundamental principle of the Web. HTML documents represent the logical structure of the document; style sheets provide formatting instructions.
Now, I will grant you during the browser wars of the 90s when everybody was trying to get ahead, some layout elements were stupidly added to HTML, and copied by other browsers. But these came nowhere near close to being definitive layout descriptions, and since at least 1997, the W3C has advocated for separating content into HTML, and presentation into CSS.
14 hours ago [-]
cyteeditor 1 hours ago [-]
Having worked on rich text editors for several years, I've developed a strong sense of the limitations of native HTML capabilities.
Popovers and dialogs are indeed useful; our project's color picker popup has been moved to a popover, which is much cleaner than manually managing z-index and closing it by clicking outside.
However, contenteditable is an exception. While it appears to be a native rich text editing capability of browsers, the implementation varies significantly across different browsers. The same operation will produce completely different HTML in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. Not to mention mobile browsers with their various unpredictable input behaviors. This is why editors like ProseMirror and Wordgard don't trust contenteditable output; instead, they maintain their own document model and only use contenteditable as an input layer.
While native HTML capabilities are improving, for complex interactive scenarios, such as rich text editing and clipboard parsing, JavaScript is still essential.
bsammon 2 hours ago [-]
The main thing I'd like to see HTML (maybe more accurately, without-Javascript) do is AI-bot protection.
Browsing the web with Javascript turned off makes things much more tolerable on my low-RAM computer. Until a year or two, I could access the vast majority of the sites that I cared to. With anti-AI-bot protection becoming prevalent, this has gotten a lot worse lately.
I've read somewhere that recent versions of Anubis support no-JS mode. I haven't seen it in use much yet. I wonder if that's because sites are still using old versions of Anubis, or because it's turned off by default in the new version, and sites haven't bothered to enable it, or some other reason.
One instance I've noticed is codeberg, which seemed to be using some no-JS-compatible bot protection -- I'm not sure if it is/was Anubis -- I don't use codeberg regularly (I haven't needed an account there yet), so I'm not sure about details.
userbinator 2 hours ago [-]
Rate-limiting was always a server-side feature, and HTML has nothing to do with this.
"AI-bot protection" is the latest boogeyman for driving the Internet towards centralised control, along with age/identity verification and the rest of the DRM "trusted" computing crap. So much manufactured consent. It's sickening to see so many fall for that propaganda, especially those who should know better. Tell everyone who still thinks "AI bots" and not just plain old DDoS'es from those in bed with Big Tech are somehow pummeling their site, that the misdirection and lies are no longer working, and we might see things improve.
aitchnyu 15 hours ago [-]
Saw Grouped <details>, ctrl+F'd the hidden content and it opened and highlighted the text in Firefox. Was waiting for this fix ever since I learned about details.
culi 13 hours ago [-]
You can also control this behavior for almost any hidden element with the `hidden="until-found"` attribute
I started textlog.cc as an experiment to see how far I can go without introducing JS. It turns out, pretty far! If you exclude the Web Push notifications which required a Service Worker script, all the rest is server-side rendered React. As a visitor, with all the hover cards and popovers you would think there is some JS going on, but it’s all HTML-only. I am enjoying very much the constraint and it hasn’t hindered any progress. It’s a proof a lot can be achieved by just HTML.
hakesson 16 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I'm a great fan of both HTML and CSS "can do that". I find more useful things on the CSS side like :has, keyframes and container queries.
Why duplicate code when you have it for free :)
Sohcahtoa82 16 hours ago [-]
Yeah I've seen a page that described a whole bunch of things you can do with CSS. So many animation options!
Firefox uses the native OS color picker, which in Windows 11 still looks unchanged from Windows 95.
extra88 6 hours ago [-]
That's fine, everything doesn't have to look the same everywhere. It does matter when there's functionality a site relies on but it's not available in one out more browser/OS combinations.
sehw 45 minutes ago [-]
Hidden content was not hidden in Android Firefox.
pwdisswordfishq 30 minutes ago [-]
And yet websites are going to do it with custom JavaScript anyway, because it's a nice excuse to force you to accept their surveillance^W analytics, which you will be enabling on the way. Oh, and also because shoving their BRAND™ in your face by micromanaging the appearance and behaviour of everything is apparently more important than user experience being predictable and consistent from one website to another.
bingemaker 16 hours ago [-]
<img> also supports "srcset" which can make the image component responsive. Hope they add a placeholder to it which can account for loading state.
theandrewbailey 8 hours ago [-]
I find using <picture> with <source> and <img> is more flexible, particularly with multiple image formats (AVIF and JPG in my case).
callc 4 hours ago [-]
One more thing thats nice with <picture> and <source> and <img> over <img> with srcset is the former can responsively change images, while some browsers (Chromium based IIRC) will assume srcset corresponds to the “same looking” image.
IIRC Chromium based srcset will never “downsize” to a smaller image, whereas <source>’s media is like a real media query.
Use if you want jumpscares at specific sizes lol
jdlshore 16 hours ago [-]
The “hidden until found” feature surprised me. What’s the use case for something like that?
dofm 16 hours ago [-]
Looks like it's basically like a one way show-hidden mechanism, but the browser's built-in search will pop it open on matches.
So you could use it for additional notes, things like "view pricing terms" or "show exclusions" on product listings — stuff people need to read only when they need to read it — without it being hidden from them if they search for it.
pseudosavant 13 hours ago [-]
There is a common accessibility pattern where the first tab focusable item is a "Skip to content" link in the top left corner. The link is initially hidden until you tab to it. That is the only use case I could think of when checking it out.
extra88 6 hours ago [-]
That's not what it's for, that's solved by showing the link when it's focused.
My guess is there was a desire to make Find-in-page automatically expand <details> elements and someone realized they could make it also work for custom disclosure widgets by giving the boolean attribute `hidden` an optional value.
dspillett 14 hours ago [-]
It won't be an intended use case, but it might be a convenient place to put poisoned content for the “benefit” of scrapers…
Though humans will accidentally find it too, so using a details tag with appropriate summary as a warning would be more friendly than just hidden content. It'll still get opened, but the user at least has a way of closing it again afterwards.
Also before using it I'd want to check what old UAs including accessibility tools tend to do when they hit a value that they don't recognise for the hidden="" attribute - would what they don't recognise as a valid value result in defaulting to the content being hidden or visible/read/other?
wvbdmp 15 hours ago [-]
Pretty cool! I’ve been using <details> for this. One example would be a collapsible tree hierarchy of our organization that you can CTRL+F and still find collapsed teams and people. Or an accordion, or anything collapsible, really.
akersten 13 hours ago [-]
On a big page with lots of collapsed content, I want control+f to search it and find anything in the collapsed sections without having to manually expand them all before I hit control+f
megaman821 12 hours ago [-]
I use it for tabbed content. That way search will reveal the tab and content on page search match.
seki285 16 hours ago [-]
One thing that comes to mind is JS-less image preview, clicking on an image thumbnail reveals the full preview.
dspillett 15 hours ago [-]
Though that wouldn't have a method of closing the full image afterwards, if you have a few thumbnails and want one full to be open at a time (closing when the next is selected).
t1234s 10 hours ago [-]
HTML did <select> since inception but that didn't stop people from trying to reinvent it using <div> and a bunch of JS.
All these great built in features, especially typeahead, wont be mainstream until they can be excessively styled.
seanclayton 9 hours ago [-]
> All these great built in features, especially typeahead, wont be mainstream until they can be excessively styled.
The only one not mentioned I think should be utilized more is properly names in html forms. Everyone has gotten used to just doing things in javascript when a lot of times if you name the fields in a correct way, you can do a simple form post and let the backend validate it with little to no modifications (hopefully none if you did it correctly).
I think the big issue with some of items listed is not all the browsers either implement it or they implement it differently. I'm sure your first instinct will be Safari but Chrome, while it may implement a lot, tends to do it quite different than the others. The date picker in browsers is one feature that comes to mind.
bigbuppo 10 hours ago [-]
It seems like the future is doing things like we did in 1998 but with HTML and CSS that isn't terrible.
florianherrengt 13 hours ago [-]
I’m a big fan of simple things but I always go back to using a library or framework because it’s much easier to create a good, consistent UX
yipinwong 13 hours ago [-]
JS has been in front-line for these functionalty, and HTML has been dog-slow to catch up with slow standardization (not based on usage more academical) and recommendations.
HTML can do that. yes. but adoption? welp, I don't really care nor will I use it unless I have to. I will use whatever was available in practice and continue to use them.
afavour 13 hours ago [-]
Odd to both complain about adoption and out yourself as someone unwilling to move to a better solution because it’s less familiar. What do you expect the answer to be here?
bigbuppo 10 hours ago [-]
I suspect he's still optimizing for IE5 compatibility.
yoz-y 15 hours ago [-]
I think it’s neat but at the same time I’m cautious about implementing an “almost feature” in what’s supposed to be a declarative language.
Now everybody needs to support it and nobody can really use it.
I’m talking about the features in work like media controls on dialog buttons.
pavlov 9 hours ago [-]
HTML in 2026 is starting to do most of what native desktop GUI frameworks did in 1996…
Well, honestly “most” is an exaggeration, when I think of what NeXT/Apple AppKit was offering around the turn of the millennium already.
It was a tremendous setback for front-end that Web 2.0 put everybody on the very lowest common denominator of UI frameworks, and then we spent decades just poorly rebuilding checkboxes and menu buttons.
Microsoft played a significant role here because they overreached around 2001, thinking their overwhelming desktop dominance will allow them to single-handedly decide the evolution of the internet’s UI layer. So they deprecated Internet Explorer (the browser with 95% marketshare) and put all their engineering bets on proprietary solutions like XAML as the HTML replacement.
dawnerd 13 hours ago [-]
I use most of these but the one that somehow slipped past me was the name attribute for details. That's going to be incredibly useful. I want to go rip out all of the js accordions now.
Dwedit 12 hours ago [-]
Grouped Details example really needs a hand cursor. An "I" cursor for selecting text doesn't tell you that an element is interactible.
CodesInChaos 15 hours ago [-]
What I'd like to see are searchable drop-downs (not to be confused with text input with suggestions).
And the date/time picker controls are too limited for many applications.
Aachen 14 hours ago [-]
Do I understand that first one correctly as datalist without allowing the user to submit a value not on the list?
CodesInChaos 14 hours ago [-]
That, and how it's rendered needs to be separate from the value the the input gets. Just like `<option value="123">John Doe</option>` or ideally even rich html like `<option value="123"><small>123</small> John Doe</option>`.
I guess the best way to render it would be exactly like `<select>` when closed, but when opened there should be a search box where it'd normally show the first option.
Clicking search would call a javascript function, which could then adjust the set of available options via the standard DOM APIs.
Alternatively they could add support for a special element `<selecthead>` which can contain whatever you want, which would render fixed at the when the drop down is opened and can be interacted with like normal html elements. Then you could place your own search fields inside.
hendurhance 14 hours ago [-]
Most people use divs for everything now. This is a breath of fresh air.
nobleach 14 hours ago [-]
With the exception of using divs for things that have a more appropriate element. Buttons for example - for the love of all that is holy - when I see an onclick handler and aria attributes on divs, I think, "couldn't you have restyled the button??"
xboxnolifes 13 hours ago [-]
Even worse, using buttons everywhere that you should use an a href.
prinny_ 12 hours ago [-]
I eagerly await the day we can fully style the date & time component so that we can put all those JS libraries to (a well deserved) rest.
hyperhello 16 hours ago [-]
I don’t understand why the group invented these new attributes and methods of action for dialogs that don’t seem relevant to anything else. Was there some silly patent to work around?
esprehn 15 hours ago [-]
As opposed to what? Not sure what the alternative you're picturing is.
It’s all binding. This is what JavaScript is for: dynamic content.
Aachen 14 hours ago [-]
Input fields are dynamic elements. Textareas can be resized. Pages can be scrolled. Why implement everything anew in custom code if it can be implemented once per browser engine in native code, native UI, and expected/homogenous UX?
hyperhello 13 hours ago [-]
I mean the action and target attributes don’t seem to appear anywhere else but the popover api. I’m in favor of HTML dialogs, I just don’t see the point in the trend of making everything into this declarative nightmare it’s becoming when we have onclick=dialog.show() without even quotes.
esprehn 11 hours ago [-]
Script attributes are very often disabled for security reasons.
The declarative actions API is currently only used for popover, but it's been discussed for over a decade to allow SSR of rich content that's interactive before script loading. See also https://developer.chrome.com/blog/command-and-commandfor
For a long time I also pushed back on these interactive APIs because script is a better primitive and every site seems to have quirky requirements. I've come around on it though because there's huge demand for SSR again and businesses are seeing the value in very fast TTI.
I do still think the date picker API is a disaster. Everyone actually needs something much richer than the system date picker. Travel websites want ranges. People want to put dots and day highlights. I wish they'd fix that next.
hyperhello 9 hours ago [-]
What I guess this all leads to is that we’re trying to create some kind of DSA that doesn’t have the possibility to hang or crash the way imperative programs must have the ability to if they are to be effective. So it seems like web design is an avalanche of sort of silly css prefixes and selectors and attributes that refer to object ids and everything, when what we might have said instead is that if a script takes more than one second wall clock or something equivalent adjusted to standard then it gets rolled back like a transaction.
peesem 13 hours ago [-]
once again, i will ask: why do people care so much about only having one <details> element open at a time? let me see what i want to see!
asdfsa32 4 hours ago [-]
Skimming/scanning. For a couple of items, it is not an issue, but say for a long list of FAQ, being able to scroll past fast is nice.
peesem 4 hours ago [-]
but then just close the elements yourself if you need that? don't force one behavior onto everyone
asdfsa32 3 hours ago [-]
Most people are lazy, so it is designed for most, including myself.
abanana 9 hours ago [-]
Yes, absolutely, and UX experts such as those at the Nielsen-Norman group have for years been advising against auto-closing the already-opened options when opening another. For good reason - user frustration in their research.
If I clicked it to open it, then if I want to close it, I'll click it again. Don't hide content I might still be reading!
cush 13 hours ago [-]
It's weird that the pure html dialog still doesn't handle inertness yet
extra88 6 hours ago [-]
Sure it does. Open a modal <dialog> using <button command="show-modal">.
ChadNauseam 12 hours ago [-]
my personal favorite, although css not html, is “field-sizing: content”. Finally with iOS 26 we can have input fields that expand to fit the content
220hertz 13 hours ago [-]
Here we all are in 2026, talking about HTML, like madmen.
fHr 9 hours ago [-]
>98% of FE/Web developers: no we need hottestnewrandomslopjslibrary.js for this
werdnapk 13 hours ago [-]
<details> is still not animatable?
esprehn 11 hours ago [-]
You can animate it now. There's no default though which is a bit annoying. I wish we had made it animate open/closed smoothly.
IMHO datalist is a typical example of "just because you can doesn't mean you should"
totallygeeky 1 days ago [-]
I've been tooling with site for years now and I'm always shocked at what can be done with raw HTML. These are some really neat examples, some work a bit funny when it comes to mouse vs. arrow key functionality though (in particular the dropdown/autocomplete), I'm wondering if that's an Edge specific issue or Chromium.
mabini 14 hours ago [-]
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should
Aachen 14 hours ago [-]
Exactly. Why reïmplement features in JS just because you can? Waste of effort and usually a worse user experience!
Wait, that wasn't what you meant?
abanana 9 hours ago [-]
Although I've used that phrase myself in the past, I've come to hate it. Somebody will post it on every HN thread where any form of suggestion has been made.
If it's part of a paragraph of insightful commentary, it's meaningful. On its own it's not, it appears as though the poster chose to copy-and-paste a cliché instead of bothering to tell us what their specific disagreement even is (perfectly reasonable sarcasm from the sibling comment notwithstanding).
encom 14 hours ago [-]
>popover
Why are we cool with popups again? Anything that interrupts and blocks content is annoying, and is nearly guaranteed to make me leave immediately. It can be used responsibly, but it almost never is.
stefan_lec 6 hours ago [-]
Very handy for nav bars with expandable drop-downs for more links - can now be done with zero JS. Requires much less CSS boilerplate now, and you don’t have to use z-index at all (which eliminates a whole bunch of tricky issues). They also handle all the tricky aria/keyboard/focus mgmt bits for you, too. It works really, really well.
Supposed to be real handy for tooltips too, but haven’t used that myself yet.
Edit to avoid potential confusion: these are separate from modal dialogs, think more like very small popups anchored to one point on the page that still allow you to interact with everything else. Theoretically you can make them modal, but it would be silly to - you’d be better off using <dialog> and the invoker api
vazark 13 hours ago [-]
It is commonly used in dashboards when you want a confirmation dialog
15 hours ago [-]
LoganDark 2 hours ago [-]
> Open one and the others close automatically.
I'm not sure that I've ever wanted this!! In fact, whenever I encounter something like a FAQ section where every single heading is its own collapsible, I typically expand all from the bottom up so that I can read everything without having to scroll-click-scroll-click etc. Whenever I encounter this behavior it's disgusting and user-hostile and I hate it.
asdfsa32 6 hours ago [-]
Can we start having a label for aislop content?
Maybe it is useful, but I am not reading it. I could barely read 2-3 lines before I closed the tab. Next.
zuzululu 13 hours ago [-]
ngl i was surprised for the modal dialogs i always thought we needed javascript as i have been doing so forever with jquery
a bit off topic but wish we could bring back <frames> and <tables>. just good old fashioned stuff from the late 90s
bellowsgulch 15 hours ago [-]
The older I get, the less I want to use new browser features that have already been somehow possible with existing ones that typically have been around for literal decades.
Adopting them makes a future with multiple browser engines more labor intensive and unlikely as the number of standards targets one is required to support grows and it becomes a game of asking yourself what sites you want your browser to support.
If you don't have a lot of experience in web software, you might think, that's a silly thing to think about, but I think it's that level of maybe exceptional thoughtfulness that has really profound ramifications. If you do have a lot of experience in web software and you think it's silly to think about, you suck.
abanana 9 hours ago [-]
You started that off by raising an interesting point. Pity you had to ruin it by telling us you're exceptionally thoughtful and profound, and that those who disagree, suck!
It's true, the amount of work that would be needed nowadays has made the idea of building a new browser engine almost impossible (I don't know how the Ladybird devs are getting on). It's a reason to encourage people to support Firefox on desktop, since just about everything else is based on the other browser engine. I still miss Opera's Presto - we don't want to lose another one, or there'll be no competition at all.
But as we've already crossed that threshold where the workload is preventing new engines from being built: choosing not to use new features, after they've been added to all the existing browser engines, isn't going to help that situation in any way.
2 hours ago [-]
2 hours ago [-]
br0ceph 11 hours ago [-]
js is web remote code execution.
we need to return to an html only browser world.
theres no reason for a browser to be an OS/compiler/abi, for remote code.
this is the dumbest shit in the history of computers.
why didnt everyone have they torches and pitchforks, when web2.0 became a thing?
yurishimo 1 days ago [-]
Just a heads up but datalist is not really a great solution if you need a strong contract. The user can still type whatever they want into the field and there is no fuzzy filtering or typo mitigation. Once you add those requirements, a library that gives you a more fully featured combobox is likely going to make a lot of sense in your project.
vlucas 15 hours ago [-]
Very true, and ran into this one specifically myself when going down the "HTML can do this!" road. HTML can NOT, in fact, replace a good combobox with search input. Datalist has significant shortcomings. I wound up using a React island for this single input inside otherwise normal HTML, despite my own objections, because it really it just that much better than the native options.
theandrewbailey 8 hours ago [-]
Not having fuzzy filtering could be OK if you could filter the datalist and force it to display anyway. (There is no way to force it to display.) I gave up and used <ul> or <ol> instead.
Groxx 13 hours ago [-]
Wow, yeah - years later and I still get nothing in Firefox, and support is quite spotty in general (and clearly still buggy): https://caniuse.com/?search=datalist
Hard pass, that's essentially unusable.
sarchertech 16 hours ago [-]
There’s still browser/OS typo mitigation.
reaperducer 15 hours ago [-]
That's the whole sanitize vs. validate argument debate that keeps coming up.
How you handle it is project-dependent. But if you're doing a real web site, not an SPA, you can show an error/help page, or re-load the current page with the error/help message.
yurishimo 13 hours ago [-]
For sure; and it will continue to be an issue as long as we allow old browsers to exist. I’m definitely not saying you shouldn’t have backend validation, just highlighting where the frontend validation provided by the browser is not as universal as it might appear on the surface.
FWIW I find the native date picker to also still be quite poorly performing in practice, despite quite robust browser support. I wish it worked better but for many reasons, I still see plenty of users (or bots?) who submit dates in the wrong format for whatever reason. My current hypothesis is largely focused on password managers though since they will often do whatever they want directly in the value attribute of an input element.
Arch-TK 13 hours ago [-]
This is specifically about good UX not about security, validation, or sanitisation.
dxroshan 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
iamgopal 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
poopiokaka 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
karamalaskar 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Theoleff 13 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
devinhades333 13 hours ago [-]
This page loads so slow it did not evenwork for me. guess html was not enough
hollowturtle 15 hours ago [-]
An "HTML Can't Do That" would be hundreds pages long, and at the pace of getting features like dialogs every decade we're limiting ourselfs on any further development and creating serious apps. It wasn't created for apps, it was created for light document formatting. When we will pretend a drawing api we can call directly from webassembly? Outside of web ui frameworks are doing just fine and way better and more performantly than html and dom
gear54rus 15 hours ago [-]
> When we will pretend a drawing api we can call directly from webassembly?
Hopefully, never. There's enough ad-blocking arms race as it is.
hollowturtle 13 hours ago [-]
You confuse marketing websites with productivity apps, google docs, figma and many more already render on a canvas using webassembly or not. It's a matter of exposing the right tools
doodlesdev 2 hours ago [-]
There's friction to doing it this way right now, though. You lose out quickly on accessibility, SEO, performance and developer experience (you need developers that are more experienced).
Unfortunately, thinking about it in terms of game theory [0], I believe this is a good thing: I don't want most websites migrating to canvas-like APIs for rendering. My web browser is my agent and I'd like it to mostly render DOM-rendered pages with CSS styling and, perhaps, funny JavaScript that doesn't track me around.
Also, I wish Figma and Google Docs were just offline-usable desktop applications. Both are great _products_ and I use them, but using them on a browser tab makes me unhappy.
The only hard thing is still to position a popover near the element that triggers it, such as when you want to create a context menu that has to render above/below the button that triggered it. There is anchor positioning in CSS now but support is still limited and I find it hard to wrap my head around.
LLMs are also terrible at these new standards. If they even know about them, they often think they're not baseline yet and they have almost zero training data compared to the giant mountain of weird JS and CSS that people had to use before the introduction of these standards.
I was going to suggest anchor positioning. I found it difficult to wrap my head around too, but once it clicks it's pretty simple. As a bonus, you can use it to position many other things than just popovers.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
You could create a Skill [1] that tells the agent to use modern css; the newer models like Opus 5 are probably much better with modern css.
Google released a set of skills at I/O called Modern Web Guidance [2] that steer coding agents to use modern css and best practices.
[1]: https://www.skills.sh/paulirish/dotfiles/modern-css
[2]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/modern-web-guidance/get-st...
If you put something like this in your popover class, it will resolve to the button that called it when position-anchor is not set:
top: anchor(bottom);
I'm not sure how widely supported it is but I've been using it in Firefox/Chrome.
I really wonder if AI coding is just going to lock us into 2024-ish era languages and libraries forever.
It's exactly like trying to acquire a bootleg of a movie, but all you can afford is a single blurry jpeg taken from the back row of a theater.
What's worse is you're an alien who wants to understand life on Earth by watching this single movie. That's how far away we are from AGI.
I'm not an LLM, but that was my immediate thought - how new does a browser have to be to support these and which browsers am I excluding by using these features?
Skill issue? I mean, I wonder if adding a skill to use these newer standards can push it over the edge from the crappy JS it was trained on.
Testing for accessibility and on mobile devices has a tendency to derail the best intentions. What tools are you using for those concerns? I'm not asking because I need advice. I'm asking because I want to know what you or your team did.
>Just a heads up but datalist is not really a great solution if you need a strong contract. The user can still type whatever they want into the field and there is no fuzzy filtering or typo mitigation. Once you add those requirements, a library that gives you a more fully featured combobox is likely going to make a lot of sense in your project.
It is true! HTML can do a lot of cool stuff, it might get you 100% of the way depending on what you're doing. But if you have a lot of forms where users pick from a value set, and want to enforce no other strings and get a good search experience, datalist does not get you there.
So, let the user type, then validate in javascript if you want instant feedback (by changing colors, say, to red / orange), but ideally don't fully block it from being seen by the server. And do the real validation on the server side. This is what I found to be fairly robust, while allowing mitigations if a bad rollout breaks something (delivering to clients is slower than updating something on the server side, most often).
I’m not advocating for willy-nilly package inclusion, just highlighting a current shortcoming of datalist that is often not mentioned in these sorts of articles.
Hopefully these and others modern HTML features gain adoption, along with realizing perhaps a Single Page Application isn't necessary in most instances.
I don't often have to write frontend code, but when I do, there is very little in terms of interactivity you cannot do with HTML these days, worst case a little sprinkle of something like HTMX.
(+1)
And for some front-end form field validation in the spirit of htmx, ParsleyJS[0] is quite nice. Below is one way to enable the former to support the latter:
0 - https://parsleyjs.org/It's a small problem compared to the ease of use for development you can gain via Blazor, so I don't see any reason not to solve it.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/View_Transi...
https://view-transitions.chrome.dev
Best part about it is how gracefully it degrades.
Even if a site doesn’t monetize with Google Ads, there’s a decent chance it’s pulling a script from ajax.googleapis.com, and Google still knows that you visited the site from the Referer of the script download.
https://noscript.net/
Using this tiny lib [2: shameless plug] I wrote specifically incorporating the "HTML Can Do That"-style realisations going into the big rewrite.
[1] - https://github.com/knadh/listmonk/issues/3073
[2] - https://oat.ink
For some multi-country companies it makes sense to have all admin pages in English no matter the underlying OS language. Imagine sending a screenshot where the OS date format is different from what everybody else expects from an English page.
But yes, there's also a very good argument to be made in favor of having such localized elements follow the content's `lang` attribute - potentially with a `lang="initial"` to reset it to "whatever the user has configured for their OS".
Of course most JavaScript-based tables get this wrong, too.
But thinking about it: Is there a precedent for HTML to be able to include information that instructs the device to present the DOM out of order? Maybe it's out of scope for HTML to have information about presentation order, when the order is supposed to be implied strictly by the DOM hierarchy itself.
Of course, CSS can visually reorder stuff (e.g. `order` on flex/grid items), but MDN has accessibility warnings regarding the use of `order` and visually presenting the data in an order not reflected by the DOM. So, maybe sorting is best done by reordering the DOM after all.
Yes, it can be done with JS, but nothing is going to beat the browser engine for frequent DOM manipulation of that sort. It's also just one less dependency to have to pull in.
It's really easy to do this with server rendered HTML. Put a link with the sort param in the column headers and be done.
It does make sense in one situation, if the table is a large server-side paginated one and the sorting is really an ORDER BY clause. But for a basic table that fits entirely on the client, it doesn't make sense at all. There are tiny JS libraries that will make <table>s sortable when you add a particular class name.
What are some good ones?
HTML describes layout, CSS describes style, JS adds interactivity.
Want sortable tables? Get a jquery plugin and spend five minutes, done.
This was all solved a decade or more ago.
I want sortable tables without having to rely on a third-party plugin to a third-party library. HTML describes content, not just layout. It would be a `sortable` attribute on the table, just like you already have attributes that have nothing to do with layout such as `autocomplete` or `aria-*`.
It's all fine and dandy until marketing bros decide to shove all kinds of shady modals into that JS file. The JS side is not exclusive to trivial interactivity.
It's open source software. You can see what it does, and you just put it on your server. We're talking about pre NPM javascript here, no continuous deployment, everything is vendored and local and no one is going to change that file without your knowledge and permission. And if someone does, you have much bigger problems on your hands.
What you can't own and control is the browser vendors and how they choose to implement things, or not to. You can edit a JS file to your specific needs, but you're stuck with whatever the browser decides.
There is an incentive to use HTML for common interactivity purposes.
News to me.
If HTML had <inline> <block> <column> <row> or <grid> tags, sure. But CSS determines the layout via display/position properties.
<div> is block
<table>,<tr> and <td> are your grid, row and column.
CSS improves on describing layout with positioning but HTML was still doing that before CSS even came along.
> explicitly and implicitly describe the layout of an HTML document.
No, this doesn't happen.
> In fact, "HTML" itself is an acronym (HyperText Markup Language)
Duh.
> in which the "Markup" describes the function of HTML to "mark up" text in a similar way that editors once did in the print industry, describing which parts of the text should be bold, italicized, etc. or divided up and in what way.
Which has fuck-all to do with the layout.
This statement is mendacious, at best. I have explained that HTML has fuck-all to do with layout. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Here, check out what the W3C has to say about it:
> Because HTML conveys meaning, rather than presentation, the same page can also be used by a small browser on a mobile phone, without any change to the page. ... But it goes further than just differences in screen size: the same page could equally be used by a blind user using a browser based around speech synthesis, which instead of displaying the page on a screen, reads the page to the user, e.g. using headphones. Instead of large text for the headings, the speech browser might use a different volume or a slower voice.
(Emphasis in the original.)
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#semantics-2
Also, check out the ACID series of specifications which require and always use CSS, because otherwise, there is no mandate on how a browser should display stuff.
And, just for completeness, here are a couple of quotes from Tim Berners-Lee:
> HTML should convey the structure of a hypertext document, but not details of its presentation. This was the only way to get it to display reasonably on any of a very wide variety of different screens and sizes of paper.
> The separation of presentation from structure is a fundamental principle of the Web. HTML documents represent the logical structure of the document; style sheets provide formatting instructions.
Now, I will grant you during the browser wars of the 90s when everybody was trying to get ahead, some layout elements were stupidly added to HTML, and copied by other browsers. But these came nowhere near close to being definitive layout descriptions, and since at least 1997, the W3C has advocated for separating content into HTML, and presentation into CSS.
Popovers and dialogs are indeed useful; our project's color picker popup has been moved to a popover, which is much cleaner than manually managing z-index and closing it by clicking outside.
However, contenteditable is an exception. While it appears to be a native rich text editing capability of browsers, the implementation varies significantly across different browsers. The same operation will produce completely different HTML in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. Not to mention mobile browsers with their various unpredictable input behaviors. This is why editors like ProseMirror and Wordgard don't trust contenteditable output; instead, they maintain their own document model and only use contenteditable as an input layer.
While native HTML capabilities are improving, for complex interactive scenarios, such as rich text editing and clipboard parsing, JavaScript is still essential.
Browsing the web with Javascript turned off makes things much more tolerable on my low-RAM computer. Until a year or two, I could access the vast majority of the sites that I cared to. With anti-AI-bot protection becoming prevalent, this has gotten a lot worse lately.
I've read somewhere that recent versions of Anubis support no-JS mode. I haven't seen it in use much yet. I wonder if that's because sites are still using old versions of Anubis, or because it's turned off by default in the new version, and sites haven't bothered to enable it, or some other reason.
One instance I've noticed is codeberg, which seemed to be using some no-JS-compatible bot protection -- I'm not sure if it is/was Anubis -- I don't use codeberg regularly (I haven't needed an account there yet), so I'm not sure about details.
"AI-bot protection" is the latest boogeyman for driving the Internet towards centralised control, along with age/identity verification and the rest of the DRM "trusted" computing crap. So much manufactured consent. It's sickening to see so many fall for that propaganda, especially those who should know better. Tell everyone who still thinks "AI bots" and not just plain old DDoS'es from those in bed with Big Tech are somehow pummeling their site, that the misdirection and lies are no longer working, and we might see things improve.
https://css-tricks.com/covering-hiddenuntil-found/
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...
Firefox uses the native OS color picker, which in Windows 11 still looks unchanged from Windows 95.
IIRC Chromium based srcset will never “downsize” to a smaller image, whereas <source>’s media is like a real media query.
Use if you want jumpscares at specific sizes lol
So you could use it for additional notes, things like "view pricing terms" or "show exclusions" on product listings — stuff people need to read only when they need to read it — without it being hidden from them if they search for it.
My guess is there was a desire to make Find-in-page automatically expand <details> elements and someone realized they could make it also work for custom disclosure widgets by giving the boolean attribute `hidden` an optional value.
Though humans will accidentally find it too, so using a details tag with appropriate summary as a warning would be more friendly than just hidden content. It'll still get opened, but the user at least has a way of closing it again afterwards.
Also before using it I'd want to check what old UAs including accessibility tools tend to do when they hit a value that they don't recognise for the hidden="" attribute - would what they don't recognise as a valid value result in defaulting to the content being hidden or visible/read/other?
All these great built in features, especially typeahead, wont be mainstream until they can be excessively styled.
https://developer.chrome.com/blog/a-customizable-select
I think the big issue with some of items listed is not all the browsers either implement it or they implement it differently. I'm sure your first instinct will be Safari but Chrome, while it may implement a lot, tends to do it quite different than the others. The date picker in browsers is one feature that comes to mind.
HTML can do that. yes. but adoption? welp, I don't really care nor will I use it unless I have to. I will use whatever was available in practice and continue to use them.
Now everybody needs to support it and nobody can really use it.
I’m talking about the features in work like media controls on dialog buttons.
Well, honestly “most” is an exaggeration, when I think of what NeXT/Apple AppKit was offering around the turn of the millennium already.
It was a tremendous setback for front-end that Web 2.0 put everybody on the very lowest common denominator of UI frameworks, and then we spent decades just poorly rebuilding checkboxes and menu buttons.
Microsoft played a significant role here because they overreached around 2001, thinking their overwhelming desktop dominance will allow them to single-handedly decide the evolution of the internet’s UI layer. So they deprecated Internet Explorer (the browser with 95% marketshare) and put all their engineering bets on proprietary solutions like XAML as the HTML replacement.
And the date/time picker controls are too limited for many applications.
I guess the best way to render it would be exactly like `<select>` when closed, but when opened there should be a search box where it'd normally show the first option.
Clicking search would call a javascript function, which could then adjust the set of available options via the standard DOM APIs.
Alternatively they could add support for a special element `<selecthead>` which can contain whatever you want, which would render fixed at the when the drop down is opened and can be interacted with like normal html elements. Then you could place your own search fields inside.
It’s all binding. This is what JavaScript is for: dynamic content.
The declarative actions API is currently only used for popover, but it's been discussed for over a decade to allow SSR of rich content that's interactive before script loading. See also https://developer.chrome.com/blog/command-and-commandfor
For a long time I also pushed back on these interactive APIs because script is a better primitive and every site seems to have quirky requirements. I've come around on it though because there's huge demand for SSR again and businesses are seeing the value in very fast TTI.
I do still think the date picker API is a disaster. Everyone actually needs something much richer than the system date picker. Travel websites want ranges. People want to put dots and day highlights. I wish they'd fix that next.
If I clicked it to open it, then if I want to close it, I'll click it again. Don't hide content I might still be reading!
https://austingil.com/animating-details-element-with-only-cs...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/S...
Wait, that wasn't what you meant?
If it's part of a paragraph of insightful commentary, it's meaningful. On its own it's not, it appears as though the poster chose to copy-and-paste a cliché instead of bothering to tell us what their specific disagreement even is (perfectly reasonable sarcasm from the sibling comment notwithstanding).
Why are we cool with popups again? Anything that interrupts and blocks content is annoying, and is nearly guaranteed to make me leave immediately. It can be used responsibly, but it almost never is.
Supposed to be real handy for tooltips too, but haven’t used that myself yet.
Edit to avoid potential confusion: these are separate from modal dialogs, think more like very small popups anchored to one point on the page that still allow you to interact with everything else. Theoretically you can make them modal, but it would be silly to - you’d be better off using <dialog> and the invoker api
I'm not sure that I've ever wanted this!! In fact, whenever I encounter something like a FAQ section where every single heading is its own collapsible, I typically expand all from the bottom up so that I can read everything without having to scroll-click-scroll-click etc. Whenever I encounter this behavior it's disgusting and user-hostile and I hate it.
Maybe it is useful, but I am not reading it. I could barely read 2-3 lines before I closed the tab. Next.
a bit off topic but wish we could bring back <frames> and <tables>. just good old fashioned stuff from the late 90s
Adopting them makes a future with multiple browser engines more labor intensive and unlikely as the number of standards targets one is required to support grows and it becomes a game of asking yourself what sites you want your browser to support.
If you don't have a lot of experience in web software, you might think, that's a silly thing to think about, but I think it's that level of maybe exceptional thoughtfulness that has really profound ramifications. If you do have a lot of experience in web software and you think it's silly to think about, you suck.
It's true, the amount of work that would be needed nowadays has made the idea of building a new browser engine almost impossible (I don't know how the Ladybird devs are getting on). It's a reason to encourage people to support Firefox on desktop, since just about everything else is based on the other browser engine. I still miss Opera's Presto - we don't want to lose another one, or there'll be no competition at all.
But as we've already crossed that threshold where the workload is preventing new engines from being built: choosing not to use new features, after they've been added to all the existing browser engines, isn't going to help that situation in any way.
theres no reason for a browser to be an OS/compiler/abi, for remote code.
this is the dumbest shit in the history of computers. why didnt everyone have they torches and pitchforks, when web2.0 became a thing?
Hard pass, that's essentially unusable.
How you handle it is project-dependent. But if you're doing a real web site, not an SPA, you can show an error/help page, or re-load the current page with the error/help message.
FWIW I find the native date picker to also still be quite poorly performing in practice, despite quite robust browser support. I wish it worked better but for many reasons, I still see plenty of users (or bots?) who submit dates in the wrong format for whatever reason. My current hypothesis is largely focused on password managers though since they will often do whatever they want directly in the value attribute of an input element.
Hopefully, never. There's enough ad-blocking arms race as it is.
Unfortunately, thinking about it in terms of game theory [0], I believe this is a good thing: I don't want most websites migrating to canvas-like APIs for rendering. My web browser is my agent and I'd like it to mostly render DOM-rendered pages with CSS styling and, perhaps, funny JavaScript that doesn't track me around.
Also, I wish Figma and Google Docs were just offline-usable desktop applications. Both are great _products_ and I use them, but using them on a browser tab makes me unhappy.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory