> The drawdown in his voting stake has been so dramatic that Kurtz in December triggered a clause eliminating all of CrowdStrike’s super-voting stock...
For one, this is a problem world wide, but OK, you can try to solve it for the US.
But for another, not everyone has a state ID card. In particular the 7.1% of the population that does not have U.S. citizenship will have varying amounts of US documentation, depending on how long they're in the US for and whether they're there legally.
And you really want to be able to sell tickets to tourists.
Precisely. ARRI is only a viable business because they also have lighting and lenses. Sony and Canon imaging subsidize their cine lines with their high-volume consumer products.
I live in San Diego and energy prices are relatively expensive. We installed solar two years ago and routinely overproduce 3+ MWh.
Now, with a heat pump, the wife and kids can set the thermostat for their comfort and I am less anxious about the monthly bill. The freedom was worth it, for us.
100%. The Jones Act is more than a regulatory hurdle for offshore wind projects; it's a crucial pillar for our national security and maritime strength. By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms. It's about investing in our infrastructure, creating jobs, and keeping the U.S. competitive in the global maritime industry. It's a strategic move for our economy and national defense.
>By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms.
It certainly doesn't - there are enough "cowboy" US operators who are working far below the quality and safety standards which are practiced by European contractors. It's really a struggle sometimes to ensure that things are done properly and safely in the US. It's a practically new industry in the US and there is a lot of catching up to do.
> By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms.
As the article says, there are currently no WTIV ships that meet the requirements of the Jones Act. So you can't really say the law guarantees something that doesn't exist.
We suck at building ships. We can't build them quickly or resource-efficiently. They frequently break down (remember Windows NT problems on Destroyers?). Washington State can't even figure out how to buy new ones.
> ...it's a crucial pillar for our national security and maritime strength...It's a strategic move for our economy and national defense.
B...b...but I want to monomaniacally focus on short-term market prices, like they're the only thing that matters in the world! Quit cramping my ideological fixation with complicating factors!
HTMX aims to render itself obsolete by serving as a proof of concept to advance the HTML specification. In various interviews and blog posts, Carson has mentioned that jQuery was essential only until browsers implemented features like `querySelectorAll`.
The discussion about Library vs. Framework misses the core objective of the HTMX project.
When I initially read the htmx documentation I was confused because it kept talking about a hypermedia client. The context clues suggested they were referring to htmx but my brain kept saying "isn't the browser the hypermedia client?" Eventually it sank in that htmx is an extension of the hypermedia client. When I first tried to use htmx I experienced a lot of discomfort regarding areas where htmx feels non-standard, such as redirects in the hx- readers on a 200 response. Once I understood that htmx is explicitly trying to move the boundary of the hypermedia client a lot of that discomfort melted away.
Yes htmx is an augmentation of the browser, specifically through enhancing HTML by way of JS. The idea is that JS frameworks became popular due to the lack of additional hypermedia controls which are the basis for how agents (users) interact with websites through hypermedia clients (browsers).
If you're going to get that picky (and please be aware I'm only doing this for the sake of the argument) media can never be hypermedia in the absence of the client. HTML opened in notepad is just text. Cat GIFs, rendered in the correct client, would absolutely be hypermedia (you could inline link data as QR codes, if you felt like being perverse).
Hypermedia starts with the client, not with the file format.
I agree that a hypermedia can't act properly within the uniform interface constraint, without a hypermedia client, that is, you can't have a hypermedia system without a proper hypermedia client:
On the other hand, there is a real difference between plain text and HTML (or HXML, don't shoot!) which is a subset of text with additional concepts layered on top of it. This is akin to how JSON (or XML) is not hypermedia, but can be used to create hypermedia such as Siren or HXML.
So I still think it makes sense to discuss if a media is or is not hypermedia without reference to the client, whereas it doesn't make sense to claim it is being used as hypermedia unless it is being consumed by a properly written hypermedia client. To make my thinking concrete, I believe Siren would continue to be hypermedia, even if it wasn't be consumed properly by a client, but then also you could not describe that pairing as a hypermedia system. (This is one reason I focus on the systemic nature of hypermedia, rather than solely on hypermedia formats)
Semantic nitpicking perhaps, but then hypermedia discussions appear to tend to invite this sort of thing.
> HTML (or HXML, don't shoot!) which is a subset of text with additional concepts layered on top of it. This is akin to how JSON (or XML) is not hypermedia
So, HTML is different from plain text because it "has concepts layered on top of text" where as JSON is not hypermedia despite "having concepts layered on top of text". And the only reason is because you said so.
> So I still think it makes sense to discuss if a media is or is not hypermedia without reference to the client
Then JSON is just as much hypermedia as HTML. Both are structured text unusable without a specific client to display them or work with them.
> Semantic nitpicking perhaps, but then hypermedia discussions appear to tend to invite this sort of thing.
They only invite them because of your insistence on calling only HTML the "natural hypermedia" etc.
No, the reason is because HTML qua HTML has hypermedia controls and JSON qua JSON does not. Recall that, before I pointed out the widely used and accepted definition of hypermedia controls, and in particular that links and forms are hypermedia controls, you did not understand that concept, so you might spend some time quietly reflecting on that idea. It may help clarify things for you.
> Then JSON is just as much hypermedia as HTML. Both are structured text unusable without a specific client to display them or work with them.
As I have said and written previously (https://htmx.org/essays/hypermedia-clients/, https://hypermedia.systems/hypermedia-components/) I agree that a hypermedia client is necessary for a properly functioning hypermedia system that adheres to the uniform interface. However, I think that there is a good argument that Siren, for example, is hypermedia, even if it isn't being consumed correctly, just as I think HTML is hypermedia, even if someone is screen scraping it (i.e. not using a hypermedia client to consume it).
I don't think you can call those uses a hypermedia system, but I also don't think that changes the fact that the underlying formats, Siren & HTML, are hypermedia, due to the fact that they have hypermedia controls. That might be a subtle distinction, but I think it is a valid one. Again, perhaps as you reflect more on this concept, new to you, of hypermedia controls, the distinction will become easier to understand.
> They only invite them because of your insistence on calling only HTML the "natural hypermedia" etc.
I'm very sorry you that feel that way.
I would call HTML, "a natural hypermedia", rather than "the natural hypermedia". I would also call HXML & Siren natural hypermedia, due to the presence of hypermedia controls (a concept new to you) in their specifications.
Yeah, I went overboard with the example. The issue is that HTMX tries to take over the concept of hypermedia as if it means only HTMX and whatever HTMX is doing :)
Htmx posits that current browsers aren't "truly" hypermedia since only anchor tags and forms can initiate GET/POST requests. It is more of a tech demo showing what client with ANY tag being able to do requests would look like.
That's why whether it is library/framework is besides the point. The author posits that these features should be in the spec, and tries as closely as possible to show what something might look like if we had it in the spec
> The author posits that these features should be in the spec
Does he? The author pretends that his library is what hypertext and hypermedia are as envisioned by Time Berners-Lee and Roy Fielding, and that his approach is the only true representation of both. And that's about it. Nothing about "this should be in the spec"
Um, yes friend, that’s exactly what it’s trying to be. Carson has said numerous times that in an ideal world, the html spec would evolve to the point the htmx becomes redundant.
It’s not about htmx or any library/framework - it’s about extending html.
If that doesn’t convince you, then I’ve got nothing and suggest we both just go and enjoy some lazer horse/buffalo/pickle memes in the htmx twitter account
> The author pretends that his library is what hypertext and hypermedia are as envisioned by Time Berners-Lee and Roy Fielding, and that his approach is the only true representation of both.
Of course you're not. And I already pointed it out to you elsewhere. Your entire writing and marketing revolves around one idea, and one idea only: HTML is "natural hypermedia", and everything else is not.
OK, this is just completely unreasonable of you. HTML is a natural hypermedia in that it has native hypermedia controls. JSON & XML are not natural hypermedia because they do not, however hypermedia controls can be added on top of them, as in the case of HXML/hyperview, which, again I include in my book on hypermedia systems.
There are many other hypermedias, such as Siren, which uses JSON as a base, and I have never claimed otherwise. Mark Amundsen, perhaps the worlds expert on hypermedia, wrote the forward to my book, Hypermedia Systems, and found nothing objectionable and much worthwhile in it.
I hate to be rude but you didn't understand, or refused to acknowledge, the basic meaning and usage of the term 'hypermedia control' until I cited a W3C document using it. While I certainly understand people can dislike the conceptual basis of htmx, its admittedly idiosyncratic implementation or the way we talk about it, at this point I have tried to engage you multiple times in good faith here and have been rewarded with baseless accusations of things I haven't said and don't believe.
At this point, to be an honest person, you need to apologize for misrepresenting what I am saying multiple times to other people. It is dishonest and it makes you a liar, over something as dumb as a technical disagreement.
> I hate to be rude but you didn't understand, or refused to acknowledge, the basic meaning and usage of the term 'hypermedia control' until I cited a W3C document using it.
Just because you were correct in one small detail (citing a 2019 standard retrofitting definitions for the use in RDF etc.) doesn't make you correct in the grand scheme of things.
> with baseless accusations of things I haven't said and don't believe.
I literally quoted your own words at you.
> you need to apologize for misrepresenting what I am saying multiple times to other people.
I will not apologize for things that I even quoted from your own writing and words.
the presence of hypermedia controls is a defining characteristic of a hypermedia format
> I literally quoted your own words at you.
You took an essay I wrote in which I defined the term HDA specifically to contrast with the term SPA in the context of web development and spun that into an imagined philosophy where HTML is the only hypermedia in the world. You persisted in this after I pointed out that I included HXML in my book on hypermedia, and gave a clear definition of what I consider the defining characteristics of hypermedia & clarified specific examples of other formats that are hypermedia.
You have confused "X is A" with "Only X is A" and then, when large gaps in your understanding of hypermedia have been brought to your attention, you have dismissed them as small details.
> I will not apologize
I did not expect you to.
At this point I think I have taken goodwill as far as it can go. I encourage any other readers who have made it to this point in this hellthread to simply read my essays & perhaps my book, and judge them on their own merits:
At this point you are very loudly and publicly grinding your axe to the point that you’re telling someone to their face that they don’t understand their own viewpoint. Putting aside briefly the insanity and futility of that, it makes for a bad experience for literally everyone else.
Are you sure HTMX aims to be eventually incorporated in some form or another into the HTML spec? I think I read most of the blog articles on the website but I cannot remember such a statement.
Another question in the same vein: In your view, why is it so important for the project to advance the HTML spec?
By the way I am actually curious about this, I am an avid user of HTMX, but have never contemplated this.
Edit: Ok I think I get it now. HTMX provides hypermedia controls that should have been in the standard from the beginning. It also more-or-less maintains the current semantics of the web as defined in the HTML spec. Therefore it is logical to eventually include it into the standard. That it?
yeah, i don't think the htmx API would be the right thing to add to HTML, it's too specific to htmx, but the idea of generalizing hypermedia controls is something i hope the browser people look at
They have, and it failed. "Hypermedia controls" are for machines, first and foremost. That's what RDF and semantic web were supposed to be about, but that never took off in any significant shape or form.
I was ultimately disappointed in HTML5 even though it was supposed to bring HTML into this era, with things like audio/video tags and new input methods for phone numbers and the like for mobile users. But ultimately it fell flat, was incomplete, and it feels like it's been stagnant again since HTML5 came out.
Timezone support, no date ranges (eg from-to), date formats are a mess (mdn: "At the moment, the best way to deal with dates in forms in a cross-browser way is to have the user enter the day, month, and year in separate controls, or to use a JavaScript library such as jQuery date picker."), often rules are needed (eg only weekdays), non gregorian calendars, ...
A good date input would cover at least like 80-90% of use cases in my opinion. From experience it's currently more something like ~40% or so.
You will need to wait another 10-15 years before they overcome the issues that they caused for themselves (while twisting and contorting the platform in unpredictable ways): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1717580502280867847
the beauty of HTML markup is that it's declarative. at least from the tutorials I've seen, WebComponents drag you firmly back into imperative land with document.addChild everywhere.
The imperative part is required to build a Web Component.
When you merely import it. you can use it as declaratively as any other HTML tag. Basically Web COmponents allow you to add your own tags that are rendered as components, and freely mix "built-in" and "custom" DOM nodes in your document.
I'd say that it's the other way around, and native elements that are not system-dependent (say, a video player) should lose prominence. There's no reason to have a "native-looking" button on a web page, which otherwise cannot (and should not) be made native-looking.
Instead I expect the industry to stabilize around a few widespread sets of web components, much like a lot of CSS for controls stabilized around Bootstrap's styles.
Which controls stabilized around Bootstrap styles (now there's a a name I haven't heard in a long time)?
No, industry should not and will not stabilize around "few widespread sets". For the simple reason: it's extremely difficult to create a proper userland UI control in the browser. How many custom drop downs fail even the most basic keyboard behaviours? How many custom UI elements fail even the most basic screenreader interactions? etc. etc.
What you really truly need is a rich browser-native set if controls, and https://open-ui.org/ is slowly working towards that.
I'd love to see something like HTMX get standardized, but I'm extremely pessimistic for HTMX's prospects for standardization in HTML.
In talking to a few standards folks about it, they've all said, "oh, yeah, you want declarative AJAX; people have tried and failed to get that standardized for years." Even just trying to get <form> to target a section of the page that isn't an <iframe> has been argued about and hashed out for years.
The goal of these questions is to focus primarily on the problem, and only secondarily on the solution.
For comparison, generally standards folks think we don't want to add programming-language features to HTML, e.g. adding <if> <while> and <set-variable> elements. If you want that sort of thing, you want a full programming language; you want JavaScript, actually.
So, when people propose features that don't perfectly address their problem, we want to ask: what do you want that for? How could we solve those problems better?
HTMX doesn't have really great answers to the "what problem?" question. Look at the home page:
* Why should only <a> and <form> be able to make HTTP requests?
* Why should only click & submit events trigger them?
* Why should only GET & POST methods be available?
* Why should you only be able to replace the entire screen?
Those questions are all solution-oriented, not problem-oriented.
Each of those examples are important problems that HTMX can solve. But it doesn't solve them very well from the perspective of screen-reader accessibility.
For example, there's a bunch of stuff there around managing editable data tables (click to edit, bulk update, click to load rows, delete row, edit row). But none of them work well with screen readers. How would a screen reader describe updates to these data tables? (Go on and try those examples in a screen reader, e.g. iOS VoiceOver. It's not great.)
Of course, editable data tables are a very widely requested HTML feature; it seems quite likely that a feature like that will be added to HTML. When it is, a screen reader will announce the feature as a data table, describing it to the user clearly, including live updates.
Some of the HTMX examples already have recent new HTML features that support them directly, like <dialog>, declarative form validation, using <details> as an accordion (which you can use to support tabs).
In the future, I expect to see HTML features landing like these:
* Editable data tables
* Infinite scroll / lazy loading
* Combobox
* Skeleton UI / Loading
If/when those features get done, it's not totally clear which problems remain that would be a good fit for HTMX's approach to declarative AJAX. Like adding <if> <while> or <set-variable> elements, the problems it solves seem to all have better solutions at a different level.
And yet, we'll probably be waiting 5-10 years for those features to be standardized, at a minimum. So it's a bummer that HTMX probably won't be standardized any time soon, and that the standards committee has consistently let the "best" solution become the enemy of a "good enough" solution.
But, that's what happened, and I expect it to continue to happen, so I wouldn't hold your breath for HTMX standardization. (If you'd been holding your breath ten years ago, you'd be long dead now.)
HTMX breaks the "separation of concerns" paradigm. It's not going to help anyone doing anything complex, and it's going to be a crutch for anyone getting started. It breaks down quickly when the problem is anything more complex than clicking a button to load some content, and then what - rewrite everything in a more capable framework?
That's like preventing HTML5 to include a native date picker. Because if you want anything more complex than a basic date picker, then what? Rewrite everything in JavaScript?
> Those questions are all solution-oriented, not problem-oriented.
I think the problem is at it's core, "how do I add rich interactivity and dynamism to an HTML document without scripting?"
A general event-driven document model where document events can automatically issue server requests whose replies then trigger more document events and/or updates makes sense. htmx is one way to do this, but probably not the only or best way, but it has the core idea right: generalize hypermedia and extend the event model.
An example on the top page shows that this is an operation that should be written as a program. Therefore, this is not markup. Syntax that is not markup will not be the HTML specification.
How is that different than a standard <a> or <form> element that submits an HTTP request, receives some HTML in response, and uses that HTML to render a new GUI?
The point of HTMX is that any element can submit HTTP requests, and you can drop the response anywhere in the document. It no longer has to be just <a> and <form> with full page reloads.
It's not different.
The question is if we would have current JS capabilities in the past would we choose adding handling of <form> to HTML or would we say use JS for that. I am not sure what is the right answer but adding features to both sides is probably not a great idea because you just bloat everything.
It's a language paradigm thing. You can implement anything, from HTML to CSS, in pure imperative JS, but the result would be extremely verbose and virtually impossible for machines to interpret on the fly (i.e. little accessibility support).
There is concrete value in stating unambiguously "this is a <form>" versus "this is a blob of imperative code that I swear acts like a <form>".
In case this is meant to imply that perhaps my business and your business are both part of the same "You", they are not. They are each a party to a separate contract with Jitsi; we are not all party to one huge contract with each other (which would hypothetically allow Jitsi to do anything with our content for the purpose of helping them serve all of us).
I currently use the maxmind webservices for client-side resolution in a commercial application. It's reliable but expensive enough that I'm looking for alternatives. I'm currently experimenting CloudFront's location request headers for a massive savings.
Where maxmind is $0.0003 per query.
And my CloudFront concept is $0.0000015 per query.
Well, if you want to limit your lookups to country level you can use our free IP to Country database [0]. Feel free to ask what is the catch. It's an easy answer, there is none.
The database is updated daily, there is no quality compromise, it is a database so unlimited lookups and it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 so it permits commercial use with attribution. It is a subset of our paid city level data. If you want city level data, we have the free tier on the API permits 50k lookups per month.
By the way, I already pinged you on Twitter about the database. :/
A plausible explanation.