2. Html is object code. What matters is the readability of the source code that generates it. Worrying about the readability of the output of a compiler is akin to premature optimization.
3. The front page of News.YC is 30k. If you think that's bloated, I hope you don't visit sites that contain images.
Do you understand what I mean about the distinction between source and object code? Saying that html ought to be elegant implies that you don't. As a rule, the more elegant the language, the less elegant its object code is, because the further removed its concepts are from the primitive concepts used by a compiler.
2. Ill admit defeat on this point. (but see below)
3. With all the td, tr, etc tags, it seems messy. I don't know for sure, but I think using a stylesheet could reduce the size. I'll code hacker news in CSS when I have a few minutes and try to get the HTML+CSS under 30k.
Relatively, its a small site. That's awesome because it loads fast and I can comment using my treo, like I am now. Thanks for spending so much energy on speed.
But if it can be smaller by using CSS, I think that's a reason to switch. Don't you?
Anyway, regarding source/object code, I don't mean to disagree with you. I'm just saying that HTML was designed to be looked at and Hacker News disregards all of the convention there. I guess that's okay, its just extremely unusual.
You're changing the question on 1. Obviously whether or not I use tables is a separate question from whether the HTML I generate conforms exactly to the spec.
As for speed, no: when you've got a site down to 30k, you shouldn't be spending time making it smaller.
Are you sure HTML was designed to be looked at? I thought it was a subset of SGML, which as far as I know was a portable representation for the kind of documents that would ordinarily be seen with a WYSYWG editor. But even if HTML had been designed to be manipulated by hand, the general trend in technology is always away from that. Machine language was designed to be looked at. Then technology advanced and people started using programs to generate it.
That document you link to isn't part of the HTML standard. It seems to be an additional document from the W3C outlining how they'd like people to behave. Conforming to software standards is one thing; you have to do that to make programs work together. But complying with the W3C's wishes on how the web ought to be used is a very different matter. I feel like doing exactly what the W3C says on broader questions is not merely optional, but probably a mistake, considering the people who make it up. It would be like running your company according to a list of "best practices" compiled by a committee at General Motors.
2. Html is object code. What matters is the readability of the source code that generates it. Worrying about the readability of the output of a compiler is akin to premature optimization.
3. The front page of News.YC is 30k. If you think that's bloated, I hope you don't visit sites that contain images.
Do you understand what I mean about the distinction between source and object code? Saying that html ought to be elegant implies that you don't. As a rule, the more elegant the language, the less elegant its object code is, because the further removed its concepts are from the primitive concepts used by a compiler.