In reply to:
@timocratic True. Tho, I'd hope that a site published as an HTML API™ would place the same care on warning devs and/or not breaking the API.
-
In reply to:
@broccolini @jessicaspacekat I can't wait to go to this wedding!
In reply to:@timocratic Me too.
In reply to:@timocratic Is "debugging in console" > "debugging in browser" for you?
No snark. Genuine question.
/cc @defiler
In reply to:@ph1 It's 2012. Who's confused by HTML anymore?
In reply to:@timocratic …the tooling for HTML, namely The Browser™ is also a client of an "HTML API".
Serendipitous Re-use.
/cc @defiler
In reply to:@timocratic The purpose of this whole line of thinking is to use HTML as much possible, because...
/cc @defiler
In reply to:@timocratic :D
In reply to:@defiler Sorry. My point was the JSON Stuff You Get For Free™ tools. (e.g. Rails responds_to :json).
In reply to:@timocratic @steveklabnik And I agree with you, that if you needed to represent a set in HTML, an Unordered List prolly makes most sense.
In reply to:@timocratic @steveklabnik Ordered Lists are, definitely without a doubt, arrays.
In reply to:@heyaudy Oh, I don't know how to do it. I only noted it because HTML has <table>s for exactly that purpose. But JSON doesn't.
In reply to:@timocratic I thought so too at first. UL LIs aren't unique in the set/list (in HTML land).
Though, you could certainly treat it that way.
Marching band + video games.
http://youtu.be/sAzzbrFgcUw
/cc @n8duke @eliduke
In reply to:@HunterBridges That a very fair point.