undefined | Better HN

0 pointskuu6y ago0 comments

What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?

0 comments

Quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

> It is theoretically possible to program in HTML and CSS, but in practice this capability is limited and inconvenient; merely to make it do something is an impressive hack. Such programs ought to be free, but CSS is not a serious problem for users' freedom as of 2019.

badpun6y ago

HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.

PyroLagus6y ago

> HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.

Well… https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/

You could also argue that DOCs and PDFs are software.

beatgammit6y ago

No, DOCs and PDFs aren't necessarily software, they can contain software, just like a webpage. And just like a webpage, Stallman can choose to use FOSS to view those files, and that software can choose to not run any scripts in those files.

I'm sure he'd agree that people should also not include proprietary software in those files as well, but doing so is far less common than webpages, at least for stuff the average user is going to run into.

And how many people are actually programming in HTML/CSS vs JavaScript? A proof of concept is one thing, but most users won't run into it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse