@readyselectstart That's a good start. Here are a couple of thoughts ...
o As long as the code is sufficiently optimized to render quickly and efficiently, excess CSS is not so much an issue as use of CSS3 is, similar to HTML5. Therefore, CSS should be limited to v2.x and not hindered in quantity if the Web developer wishes to get creative.
Remember, we're not solely targeting '90s and millennium platforms here; we're also accounting for mid-'000s environments too. How the website is structured in which particular fashion, is up to the Web developer's discretion on what era they'd like to emulate.
o I think limiting every image to < 1 MB files might be a little challenging to implement, but is admittedly probably a better practice in the long run. At least for embedded images; perhaps larger files can be merely linked to their source?
o I disagree on the use of cookies as they are not an inherent element of the modern Internet, and their use can still be employed in interesting ways to even very limited platforms. As an example, Cornica.org is a perfectly Web 1.1-compliant website yet still optionally makes minimal use of cookies for a site feature (which if it didn't, it would need to resort to JS instead).
Perhaps to still remain in compliance with the GDPR, Web developers can include a very small and unobtrusive notice detailing exactly what their minimal use of optional cookies do, and only when the user is presented with a choice to enable them for some site feature, like persistent changes.
o I'm a little hesitant on the purpose of Web 1.1S, primarily being that personal / sensitive data should really not be involved in what is essentially an unofficial community-supported effort to attempt to revive a small amount of the user-facing magic that went into the original Internet.
And if personal / sensitive data is then brought into the mix using outdated security standards just to remain compliant with said unofficial effort, that could not only put users' data at risk for interception, but also for potential legal ramifications against the Web developer should the worst occur. So for that reason, it's probably a better idea to just disallow SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 entirely, as well as the handling of any personal / sensitive data whatsoever, and just keep it clean instead. I know I mentioned in an earlier post that SSL 3.0 could be used if determined absolutely necessary, but I never mentioned the transfer of personal data being a potential cause.
But then again, you may also be referring to modern SSL and TLS specifications, which given the context of the document, was not immediately clear. In which case, if websites using modern versions of SSL and TLS can only be accessed by modern browsers usually running on new hardware (while the use of HTML5 and CSS3 is simultaneously disallowed), then what becomes the objective? To have a clean and efficient site infrastructure (which, tragically, should be the current standard anyway and not the exception), or to be able to claim a new chunk of the Internet for the legendary platforms of yore?
In my opinion, websites for modern platforms using modern protocols could certainly be inspired by the Web 1.1 specification, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they must receive a certification too, for lack of a better term.
-
Now with that being said, I definitely have to find the time to update the WikiPost so that this could all be detailed a little better and be clearer to understand. Still, I should also reiterate that I think your specification document is well done and a very good effort overall. Keep going!
o As long as the code is sufficiently optimized to render quickly and efficiently, excess CSS is not so much an issue as use of CSS3 is, similar to HTML5. Therefore, CSS should be limited to v2.x and not hindered in quantity if the Web developer wishes to get creative.
Remember, we're not solely targeting '90s and millennium platforms here; we're also accounting for mid-'000s environments too. How the website is structured in which particular fashion, is up to the Web developer's discretion on what era they'd like to emulate.
o I think limiting every image to < 1 MB files might be a little challenging to implement, but is admittedly probably a better practice in the long run. At least for embedded images; perhaps larger files can be merely linked to their source?
o I disagree on the use of cookies as they are not an inherent element of the modern Internet, and their use can still be employed in interesting ways to even very limited platforms. As an example, Cornica.org is a perfectly Web 1.1-compliant website yet still optionally makes minimal use of cookies for a site feature (which if it didn't, it would need to resort to JS instead).
Perhaps to still remain in compliance with the GDPR, Web developers can include a very small and unobtrusive notice detailing exactly what their minimal use of optional cookies do, and only when the user is presented with a choice to enable them for some site feature, like persistent changes.
o I'm a little hesitant on the purpose of Web 1.1S, primarily being that personal / sensitive data should really not be involved in what is essentially an unofficial community-supported effort to attempt to revive a small amount of the user-facing magic that went into the original Internet.
And if personal / sensitive data is then brought into the mix using outdated security standards just to remain compliant with said unofficial effort, that could not only put users' data at risk for interception, but also for potential legal ramifications against the Web developer should the worst occur. So for that reason, it's probably a better idea to just disallow SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 entirely, as well as the handling of any personal / sensitive data whatsoever, and just keep it clean instead. I know I mentioned in an earlier post that SSL 3.0 could be used if determined absolutely necessary, but I never mentioned the transfer of personal data being a potential cause.
But then again, you may also be referring to modern SSL and TLS specifications, which given the context of the document, was not immediately clear. In which case, if websites using modern versions of SSL and TLS can only be accessed by modern browsers usually running on new hardware (while the use of HTML5 and CSS3 is simultaneously disallowed), then what becomes the objective? To have a clean and efficient site infrastructure (which, tragically, should be the current standard anyway and not the exception), or to be able to claim a new chunk of the Internet for the legendary platforms of yore?
In my opinion, websites for modern platforms using modern protocols could certainly be inspired by the Web 1.1 specification, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they must receive a certification too, for lack of a better term.
-
Now with that being said, I definitely have to find the time to update the WikiPost so that this could all be detailed a little better and be clearer to understand. Still, I should also reiterate that I think your specification document is well done and a very good effort overall. Keep going!
Last edited:
