http://john.ankarstrom.se/html/

Writing HTML in HTML                                  Up

I've just finished the final rewrite of my            Published by
website. I'm not lying: this is the last time         John Ankarstrom
I'm ever going to do it. This website has gone        on 2019-06-19.
through countless rewrites - from WordPress to
Jekyll to multiple static site generators of my       Pages
own - but this is the final one. I know so,
because I've found the ultimate method for            Home
writing webpages: pure HTML.                          About
                                                      Curriculum
It sounds obvious, but when you think about how           vitae
many static site generators are being released
every day - the list is practically endless -         Projects
it's far from obvious. Drew DeVault recently
challanged people to create their own blog, and       Software
he didn't even mention the fact that one could        Lamna Facebook
write it in pure HTML:
                                                      External links
    If you want a hosted platform, I recommend
    write.as. If you're technical, you could          GitHub
    build your own blog with Jekyll or Hugo.
    GitHub offers free hosting for Jekyll-based
    blogs.

Now, there's nothing wrong with Jekyll or Hugo;
it's just interesting that HTML doesn't even
get a mention. And of course, I'm not
criticizing Drew; I think the work he's doing
is great. But, just like me and you, he is a
child of his time.

That's why I'm writing this blog post - to turn
the tide just a little bit.

-----------------------------------------------

So what are the benefits of writing HTML in
HTML?

There's one less level of indirection.

This point is simple, but hugely important.

Using a static site generator means that you
have to keep track of two sources: the actual
Markdown source and the resulting HTML source.
This may not sound too difficult, but always
having to make sure that these two sources are
in line with each other takes a mental toll.
Now, when I write in HTML, I only have to keep
track of one source.

Further, you actually need to have your static
site generator installed. Again, not a huge
thing, but if you often switch between
different operating systems, this is yet
another chore. With HTML, you just need a web
browser - which, if you're creating a website,
you need anyway!

Finally, you constantly have to work around the
limitations of your static site generator.
Let's say you want your site to have a specific
directory structure, where pages are sorted
under various categories. With Jekyll, this is
practically impossible, and even though you
technically can get it working if you really
try, it is only through much effort and with a
source code that is organized much more
unintuitively than if you just wrote it
directly in HTML.

These seemingly small things tend to add up,
and when you know that there are three or four
extra things you have to think about before you
write another blog post, there's a higher
threshold to start writing.

And that's something that I've noticed: with
nothing but pure HTML, there is no threshold.
When I used a static site generator, I always
had to do a dozen small things - start the
auto-refresh server, research how to do
something - before I was ready to do anything.
Now, creating a new theme, a new post, a new
page or even a new site requires no setup - I
just open up a HTML document and start writing!

So what's the catch? There has be some reason
why people don't write their personal websites
in pure HTML. Well, it's simple:

HTML is unpleasant to write.

This is the only real reason. And it's true -
HTML is a pain to write! But the solution, I
argue, isn't to use other languages that are
then translated to HTML (we've seen above how
many problems that causes); the solution is to
use better editors.

The best HTML editor I've found is actually the
WYSIWYG Composer part of Seamonkey. As long as
the source is HTML 4.01 (which, for a personal
blog, is surely sufficient), it can edit any
HTML document. It's what I'm using right now to
write this post, and despite its age and a
couple of quirks, it works really well.

Screenshot of SeaMonkey's Composer. Click for
full size.

Another very promising alternative, which isn't
WYSIWYG, but more of a WYSIWYM editor, goes
under the name HTML Notepad.

If you don't want a WYSIWYG editor, I'm sure
that modern IDEs have reasonable support for
HTML.

In any case, once you start writing a post,
you'll notice that it actually isn't so bad, as
long as you have an editor that is more modern
than vi (no offense to vi users - I use it as
my main editor myself).

Doesn't this mean that I have to type a bunch
of boilerplate every time I create a new blog
post?

My simple answer is: just copy it. My more
advanced answer is this:

 1. Make blog posts and pages self-contained -
    in other words, have each post or page
    reside in its own folder, with its own
    scripts and stylesheets.
 2. When you want to write another post or
    page, copy the folder of an already
    existing post or page and edit it.
 3. If you find the previous step too much
    work, write a shell script that copies the
    directory and removes the old content for
    you.

But how can I then keep the style and layout of
all my posts and pages in sync?

Simple: don't! It's more fun that way. Look at
this website: if you read any previous blog
post, you'll notice that they have a different
stylesheet. This is because they were written
at different times. As such, they're like time
capsules.

Update (October 2020): I've now updated the
design of the entire site (mostly), because
some pages had style sheets that depended on
modern CSS features and were incompatible with
older browsers - so you won't really see any
time capsules if you explore the site, at least
for now.

In summary, I don't think this post will
convince everyone - and it's not written for
everyone. It's written for those who have found
themselves in the same situation as me:
regularly rewriting their website, fighting
with their static site generator. For these
people, I think pure HTML is the best choice.

Read more: Response from Lobste.rs

-----------------------------------------------

Learning C as an         Is Zoom really
uneducated hobbyist      that bad?
(previous article)       (next article)

-----------------------------------------------

Comments  *  Submit