Markup for hypertext

So I write posts in Glorpdown, but web browser support for Glorpdown is not spectacular. There exists a HyperText Markup Language that is sometimes used for marking up hypertext. And it is possible to convert Glorpdown to HTML and serve that instead. Many web browsers come with support for HTML :)

HTML has a bunch of stuff in it.
Glorpdown has less stuff in it.
So when converting I get to choose which bits of HTML to use for what. I’ve learned some HTML and have ended up with something like this for now:


Reasonably semantic. h1/h2/h3, p, ul and li, figure and figcaption, blockquote, em and code and pre. Stuff like that. No divs. Almost no CSS classes. No JavaScript for pages that are basically just text content. I use JavaScript when I have actually interactive content, like editors with REPL-functionality in the lambda calculus posts.

For images I used to use an img tag and put any description in its alt attribute. Then I wanted the description to show up not just as an alternative to the image so I also put it in the title attribute. I think that was a bad idea and that a screen reader would maybe read both the title and the alt, and also title seems a little awkward since you often have to like go look for it by hovering over the image or something. Now I put the img in a figure, leave the alt empty and put the description in a figcaption instead.
This “alt and figcaption”-answer seems good.

I could add stuff like nav and main and maybe header. I haven’t bothered with it since there’d be so little stuff outside of main anyway, like the nav would contain only the index-link. But I dunno maybe I should.

Also CSS

The HTML should be mostly fine on its own. It’d be nice if user style sheets were more of a thing and I could just give HTML and let it be styled according to the preferences of whoever was reading. But because circumstances, I apply some styling. I think my “philosophy” is that if I think that a piece of CSS is small and understandable and makes something look better, then okay fine. If something takes a lot of CSS and/or it feels like I’m fighting with it, then I won’t bother. I might look for an alternative solution or something, or maybe just decide that no actually I want it to look the way it does without additional styling.

I use one CSS class that I've called “page”. It sets max-width to 70rem, which seems to make for a line length that isn’t too bad. For the regular text content pages, I put the page-class on the body-element. Not styling the body directly here because I’m using the same CSS file for stuff like my Glorpdown editor, where I want to use more of the horizontal space (editor and preview side by side).

For everything else I use element selectors, or :root. Like I apply some styling to the ps, not to some class I’m using for my paragraphs. I used to think I should use classes for styling. I don’t remember why. Maybe it appeared to be best practice or “more flexible” or something, or maybe it was just that I though that “classes are CSS stuff.” Either way, I don’t actually want to have like five different ways to style paragraphs and it’s less noisy without the classes :)

So there’s stuff like:

I dunno. Okay.

The CSS I’m using is here. It’s like 60-70 lines these days, which seems okay to me.

I’ve remade this website a few times. One of the times I did that I thought I wanted to make it look good and I read some practical typography. I no longer want to make it look good. But like I guess it’s a nice book if you’re into that kind of thing:
Butterick’s Practical Typography
I mean it’s probably the only book on typography that has a section called “Why Racket? Why Lisp?”