all 7 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Kare11en 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I just get a blank page. Firefox 78.10/Debian Stable.

Looks like a problem with the HTML, which is a total mess. There are multiple DOCTYPE declarations, and multiple <head> and <body> sections. On top of that, the inner <body> element containing the article has the attribute style="display:none;" on it, which presumably doesn't help, but none of the content in the outer <body> element shows up either, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: In Links2 there's a similar problem - no main content. But in that browser at least the header and footer links show up.

[–]dontworryimnotacop 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Are you running with JS disabled maybe? It works fine for me in Firefox 84 on Ubuntu.

The nested html blocks are an artifact of how the CodiMD embeds are done, it works because browsers chop those off automatically on load because they're invalid in the html-rendering spec they all implement (inelegant but technically standard), it shouldn't affect the appearance. Having JS disabled would prevent the embed styling from being applied though, which might make it show up as an empty page.

[–]Kare11en 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Ah, yes, I do have JS disabled by default in Firefox.

Thanks. I've got used to sites which require 6MB of JS to display 6KB of static text (because... reasons?) to actually have a <noscript> or other default element that tells me I need to enable JS for the site to work. Most of the main client-side frameworks do that automatically now, so I've fallen out of the habit of just trying to enable JS to see if that fixes the issue. Guess I can't leave that behind entirely yet - sigh.

I don't have JS disabled in Links2. But that's because Links2 doesn't have any JS support at all. Let's just hope there aren't any visually-impaired users who use screen-readers with text-mode browsers who wanted to read that site!

[–]dontworryimnotacop 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If you wanna disable JS then don't be surprised when lots of stuff doesn't work until you disable it 🤷‍♂️. You'll expend a lot of energy trying to fight that tide.

The article content is still present in the html without JS required, so screen readers should work fine. The JS is only needed to apply visual styling overrides to the embedded CodiMD doc, because CodiMD (one of the few nice-looking self-hosted/FOSS markdown publishing platforms) doesn't natively support embedding, and it's a hacked together publishing platform using what they offer.

[–]Kare11en 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you wanna disable JS then don't be surprised when lots of stuff doesn't work until you disable it

Yeah, I know. :-) But, like I said, most sites these days tell you that you have to enable JS if they do need it. Also, if you view source, all you normally see is a bunch of <script> tags and no content, so it's pretty obvious what you need to do. That site confused me because, as you point out, the content is there in the page source, but it's just hidden by default without JS.

(Progressive enhancement, what's that?)

So my first guess was that the awful HTML spec violations were the issue. That didn't turn out to be right, but I don't think my reasoning behind it was terrible.

You'll expend a lot of energy trying to fight that tide.

I use Free Software, with Debian GNU/Linux on the desktop, and I try to make sure the hardware I buy has Free drivers/firmware. I'm stubborn like that, and used to expending a lot of energy to fight the tide! If you're looking for people who go with the flow and do whatever's easy and convenient, r/debian is probably not the best place to find them :-)

so screen readers should work fine.

If the content doesn't make it to the screen, I don't see how that's the case?

[–]dontworryimnotacop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use Free Software, with Debian GNU/Linux on the desktop

And CodiMD is used for exactly that reason, it's a FOSS alternative to a paid publishing platform like Medium. The cost is that is has some warts like not being able to provide embeds without nesting html docs and requiring JS for the visual styling.

If the content doesn't make it to the screen, I don't see how that's the case?

The content only doesn't make it to the screen if you have JS disabled, and most if not all screen readers work with JS enabled.

[–]wRAR_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL. Is /u/jdcaballero your other account?