The link is similarly a white screen on Android Chrome for me.

Hopefully this works http://man.he.net/?topic=pg&section=all

The page source is as simple as it could have been in 1996 :-)

The original link has a broken table layout with some unbalanced </table> and </tr>. Maybe that breaks rendering on your browsers, but why not on my Firefox?

For me, not only the page is completely empty, but also the page-source, so I don't think that it's a rendering problem and rather the server sending a 0-long HTML-file or something like that.

It also finishes loading rather quickly, so it would only make sense that it's not even downloading anything.

And neither Firefox, nor Lightning Browser (WebView-based), nor CyanogenMod's Gello Browser (Chromium-based) show any form of error and just happily render a completely empty page.

Also, I do get the favicon displayed, so at least some form of connection to the server seems to be possible.

Edit: Just had another idea. It works for me when I tell Firefox to request the desktop site. So, maybe the server just gets confused by a mobile useragent-string...?

This site uses the xmp tag (deprecated in HTML 3.2, removed in HTML5) which I found interesting and had never seen!

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/xm...

It's similar to the pre tag but doesn't require the escaping. I guess you just have to make sure you don't have a closing xmp tag :)

<xmp> is great when you absolutely, positively, do not want any entities rendered under any circumstances. It's unfortunate that it's being deprecated, since it has its uses.

> <xmp> is great when you absolutely, positively, do not want any entities rendered under any circumstances. It's unfortunate that it's being deprecated, since it has its uses.

  <![CDATA[ here &entities; or <angle|<brackets>> will not interpreted ]]>

There is no need for special-casing xmp, when SGML and XML already define CDATA escapes.

Removed?

"User agents must treat xmp elements in a manner equivalent to pre elements in terms of semantics and for purposes of rendering. (The parser has special behaviour for this element though.)" — https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#require...

I was just going off what the MDN page said about it being removed in the HTML5 standard. It looks like WHATWG just has a "living standard" and W3C still uses the versioning, so it's probably removed from W3C standards. I'm not too familiar with the reality of these standards.

I use <xmp> for debugging purposes all the time.

Can you add some clarity to your complaints about WebPack?

What are the similarities with Grunt that aren't worth the mess and what are some of the awful habits that WebPack breeds?

What are your preferred ways to handle modules and build steps in general?

Under the hood this is Webpack + Babel + ESLint with sane initial configuration. Love it.

This is all I ever want in a React boilerplate, but everyone feels the need to throw a bunch of random shit into them that others probably do not even want. Glad they kept it sane and simple.

In all fairness, I think that flags that provide some basic bootstrapping for Redux and/or React-Router would be very spiffy - those tools are useful for many React applications.

I think Redux and React-Router are very opinionated and distract people new to React from React itself.

My workflow for ramping someone up on React and eventually Redux looked like:

- A single React component with React.createClass

- ES6 class React components

- Add a component hierarchy and treat the top level component's state as the entire app state - pass down callbacks to update state. Look how this becomes harder to scale as we get more depth in our component hierarchy!

- Redux without the redux-react bindings. Also stateless function components.

I agree. That's why I would put them behind flags. Even though most of my own projects wind up using them, I tend to start from a clean slate and apply things only as they become relevant.

As someone not new to React, I'm seeing this tool as a solid replacement to the old JSX Transformer script they used to provide. Let me get up and running just a bit more quickly.

I prefer this style of component test and tend to bring in jQuery as a test dependency to remove some of the complexity of the assertions (I'm not always up to date on the current DOM APIs).

I find the instance method unit test a bit unsatisfying. I'm not going to call an instance method of a component from outside of that component (maybe someone else is doing this - I'm just not sure what the use case is), so why would I do that in my test? I want to integrate through the instance method by poking at the DOM rather than calling the method directly.

If you're trying to test client side javascript with phantom + jasmine through gulp there are a few options.

I googled "gulp jasmine phantom" and found 3 options at the top, one of them being under the jasmine org on github. The other 2 seem to have similar APIs to the one under the jasmine org.

My argument would be the fact that it is "just a blogging platform."

As also Wordpress at the beginning.

He recommended books in his response.

You should be reading JavaScript: The Good Parts.

JavaScript: The Good Parts was published 2008, a lot can change in 5 years. Still worth it today?

Yes, it still a classic.

My opinion would not change as far as "which looks nicer."

You need to consider the context of the icon though.

It was just posted on reddit for the 100th time (r/webdev)