This is the opposite of clean html/css

  • rhavin0

    (@rhavin0)


    1 month, 2 weeks ago

    They don’t even try to create html/css. Instead of using classes and clean style/semantic differentiation, they put lots of html-comment-crap inside your code. Instead of a simple ‹hr/› you get:

    <!-- wp:separator -->
<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>
<!-- /wp:separator -->

    They don’t use data-attributes, they don’t use custom-elements for things that you can’t do in vanilla html5, they give you tons of comment-spam for even the simplest paragraphs. This bad review is not about the idea behind it, it is abut the absolute worst and buggy implementation possible.

    A good editor should strive to output pure html, relying on inline-styles only if absolutely necessary and *never* *ever* rely on comments. Those are purely for developers clarifying things or commenting out sections temporarily.

    This. Is. Absolute. Crap.

    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by rhavin0. Reason: typos
Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Jan Mc Kell

    (@janmtm)

    4 weeks, 1 day ago

    Hi @rhavin0 !

    Thank you so much for your feedback.

    There is an excellent article that I’ll reference below, which explains and then discusses that Gutenberg posts are not HTML. It explains in detail what they actually are, and how they were composed, as well as the rationale for the development direction that was taken.

    https://fluffyandflakey.blog/2017/09/04/gutenberg-posts-arent-html/

    I definitely hope you can take a look at that article, and if I may, there are some key quotes.

    Blocks are higher-level than HTML

    Blocks are pieces of a web page. Even though the end result is HTML in a browser, a “block” connotes more meaning than the HTML it generates.

    We can think of blocks as the evolution of shortcodes.

    Maybe on account of the familiarity of this storage format it gives the impression that it is something other than what it is, but Gutenberg posts are not HTML.

    I hope this is helpful.

    WordPress Developer Ireland

    (@papashivo)

    2 weeks, 5 days ago

    This article is just odd, sorry but this review is so valid. The code/HTML the editor generates is almost impossible to use outside of the block editor. Most devs want to see the code, so they can make bulk edits changes to a page or post, lets say all H2s need to change to H3s, in most editors this is a breeze. In Gutenberg it is a mess, I’m sorry but saying Gutenberg is not HTML is just silly.

    Thread Starter rhavin0

    (@rhavin0)

    2 weeks, 4 days ago

    @janmtm

    >”Gutenberg also stores necessary information in HTML comments.”
    Idiotic idea. Store data in data-*-attributes.

    > “the juxtaposition of an image with a caption explaining the image or providing context for it.”
    The caption is a figcaption, the rest belongs into css. There is no need for this block-bullshit.

    >”are we trying to force a two-column visual layout?”
    Thats what display:flex and diplay:grid are for. Tables are for tables.

    >”Thus, a Gutenberg post isn’t HTML, but a tree of objects and associated attributes.”
    That already exists: dom/html are the objects and they already have attributes. Dont force us to use your reinvented square-wheel. Your silly example in html looks like this:

    <img class="core-cover-image align-full background-dim" src="my-hero.jpg" />

    >”in reality we ought to consider the generated HTML as throwaway code.”
    HTML *is* the final code, comments are throwaway.

    >There’s nothing preventing a block editor from completely wiping out the existing block code.
    That is why I switched to ClassicPress and implement it in my cusomers. They’re happy how fast it is and that they cannot accidentaly change the corporate look or delete a whole post.

    >”to a lack of better native HTML support”
    Use custom tags for that.

    >”That we would need a full HTML parser”
    You dont have a full THML-Parser and try to mess with HTML? Get the fuck out o my code.

    >”Whereas HTML attributes are complicated to parse”
    It starts with one of two quotation marks and ends where you see it again if it is not escaped. If you cant do that, I dont want to use your software.

    >”we don’t actually depend on having fully-valid HTML”
    GET OUT OF MY **VALID** HTML.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by rhavin0.
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by rhavin0.
    ollybach

    (@ollybach)

    2 weeks, 3 days ago

    In summary,

    Literally years and decades have been spent to come up with standards everyone agrees to (html / css etc) which – amongst other things – ensures portability for starters.
    Gutenberg however, (and by extension WP as it is pretty much forced onto users ) knows better and comes up with it’s own “standard” which is apparently “higher level than HTML” (what is that even supposed to mean) ?
    Am I getting this about right ?

    Regarding the linked “fluffy” article:
    As far as I am concerned, it simply explains how bonkers this whole thing is and tries to “explain” the merits of gutenberg with a lot of BS.

    Quote:
    “In summary, a Gutenberg post is built upon an in-memory data structure which gets persisted somehow in an fully-isomorphic way.
    Right now that persistence is via a serialization/parser pair but could just as easily be replaced through a plugin to store the data structure as a JSON blob somewhere else.”

    Come again ?

    Then again, maybe I am too simple to understand the benefit of all of this.
    It’s just my 2 cents while roaming these comments as – still – the whole idea of gutenberg seems to me like a pretentious absurdity . oh well.

    PS: as it happens, here we are , 3 and a half years later , and the bad (1*) reviews now outnumber the 5* reviews 3/1 as opposed to 2/1 – go figure…
    https://wordpress.org/support/topic/just-adding-to-the-conversation/

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this review.