Tag: still

Does WWW still belong in URLs?

For years, a small pedantry war has been raging in our address bars. In one corner are brands like Google, Instagram, and Facebook. This group has chosen to redirect example.com to www.example.com. In the opposite corner: GitHub, DuckDuckGo, and Discord. This group has chosen to do the reverse and redirect www.example.com to example.com.

Does “WWW” belong in a URL? Some developers hold strong opinions on the subject. We’ll explore arguments for and against it after a bit of history.

What’s with the Ws?

The three Ws stand for “World Wide Web”, a late-1980s invention that introduced the world to browsers and websites. The practice of using “WWW” stems from a tradition of naming subdomains after the type of service they provide:

  • a web server at www.example.com
  • an FTP server at ftp.example.com
  • an IRC server at irc.example.com

WWW-less domain concern 1: Leaking cookies to subdomains

Critics of “WWW-less” domains have pointed out that in certain situations, subdomain.example.com would be able to read cookies set by example.com. This may be undesirable if, for example, you are a web hosting provider that lets clients operate subdomains on your domain. While the concern is valid, the behavior was specific to Internet Explorer.

RFC 6265 standardizes how browsers treat cookies and explicitly calls out this behavior as incorrect.

Another potential source of leaks is the Domain value of any cookies set by example.com. If the Domain value is explicitly set to example.com, the cookies will also be exposed to its subdomains.

Cookie value Exposed to example.com Exposed to subdomain.example.com
secret=data; Domain=example.com

In conclusion, as long as you don’t explicitly set a Domain value and your users don’t use Internet Explorer, no cookie leaks should occur.

WWW-less domain concern 2: DNS headaches

Sometimes, a “WWW-less” domain may complicate your Domain Name System (DNS) setup.

When a user types example.com into their browser’s address bar, the browser needs to know the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the web server they’re trying to visit. The browser requests this IP address from your domain’s nameservers – usually indirectly through the DNS servers of the user’s Internet Service Provider (ISP). If your nameservers are configured to respond with an A record containing the IP address, a “WWW-less” domain will work fine.

In some cases, you may want to instead use a Canonical Name (CNAME) record for your website. Such a record can declare that www.example.com is an alias of example123.somecdnprovider.com, which tells the user’s browser to instead look up the IP address of example123.somecdnprovider.com and send the HTTP request there.

Notice that the example above used a WWW subdomain. It’s not possible to define a CNAME record for example.com. As per RFC 1912, CNAME records cannot coexist with other records. If you tried to define a CNAME record for example.com, the Nameserver (NS) records for example.com containing the IP addresses of the domain’s name servers would not be allowed to exist. As a result, browsers would not be able to figure out where your name servers are.

Some DNS providers will allow you to work around this limitation. Cloudflare calls their solution CNAME flattening. With this technique, domain administrators configure a CNAME record, but their nameservers will expose an A record.

For instance, if the administrator configures a CNAME record for example.com pointing to example123.somecdnprovider.com, and an A record for example123.somecdnprovider.com exists pointing to, then Cloudflare would expose an A record for example.com pointing to

In conclusion, while the concern is valid for domain owners who wish to use CNAME records, certain DNS providers now offer a suitable workaround.

WWW-less benefits

Most of the arguments against WWW are practical or cosmetic. “No-WWW” advocates have argued that it’s easier to say and type example.com than www.example.com (which may be less confusing for less tech-savvy users).

Opponents of the WWW subdomain have also pointed out that dropping it comes with a humble performance advantage. Website owners could shave 4 bytes off each HTTP request by doing so. While these savings could add up for high-traffic websites like Facebook, bandwidth generally isn’t a scarce resource.

WWW benefits

One practical argument in favor of WWW is in situations with newer top-level domains. For example, www.example.miami is immediately recognizable as a web address when example.miami isn’t. This is less of a concern for sites that have recognizable top-level domains like .com.

Impact on your search engine ranking

The current consensus is that your choice does not influence your search engine performance. If you wish to migrate from one to the other, you’ll want to configure permanent redirects (HTTP 301) instead of temporary ones (HTTP 302). Permanent redirects ensure that the SEO value of your old URLs transfers to the new ones.

Tips for supporting both

Sites typically pick either example.com or www.example.com as their official website and configure HTTP 301 redirects for the other. In theory, it is possible to support both www.example.com and example.com. In practice, the costs may outweigh the benefits.

From a technical perspective, you’ll want to verify that your tech stack can handle it. Your content management system (CMS) or statically generated site would have to output internal links as relative URLs to preserve the visitor’s preferred hostname. Your analytics tools may log traffic to both hostnames separately unless you can configure the hostnames as aliases.

Lastly, you’ll need to take an extra step to safeguard your search engine performance. Google will consider the “WWW” and “non-WWW” versions of a URL to be duplicate content. To deduplicate content in its search index, Google will display whichever of the two it thinks the user will prefer – for better or worse.

To preserve control over how you appear in Google, it recommends inserting canonical link tags. First, decide which hostname will be the official (canonical) one.

For example, if you pick www.example.com, you will have to insert the following snippet in the <head> tag on https://example.com/my-article:

<link href="https://www.example.com/my-article" rel="canonical">

This snippet indicates to Google that the “WWW-less” variant represents the same content. In general, Google will prefer the version you’ve marked as canonical in search results, which would be the “WWW” variant in this example.


Despite intense campaigning on either side, both approaches remain valid as long as you are aware of the benefits and limitations. To cover all your bases, be sure to set up permanent redirects from one to the other and you’re all set.

Does WWW still belong in URLs? originally published on CSS-Tricks, which is part of the DigitalOcean family. You should get the newsletter.


, ,

Still Hoping for Better Native Page Transitions

It sure would be nice to be able to animate the transition between pages if we want to on the web, at least without resorting to hacks or full-blown architecture choices just to achieve it. Some kind of API that would run stuff (it could integrate with WAAPI?) before the page is unloaded, and then some buddy API that would do the same on the way in.

We do have an onbeforeunload API, but I’m not sure what kind of baggage that has. That, or otherwise, is all possible now, but what I want are purpose-built APIs that help us do it cleanly (understandable functions) and with both performance (working as quickly as clicking links normally does) and accessibility (like focus handling) in mind.

If you’re building a single-page app anyway, you get the freedom to animate between views because the page never reloads. The danger here is that you might pick a single-page app just for this ability, which is what I mean by having to buy into a site architecture just to achieve this. That feels like an unfortunate trade-off, as single-page apps bring a ton of overhead, like tooling and accessibility concerns, that you wouldn’t have otherwise needed.

Without a single page app, you could use something like Turbo and animate.css like this. Or, Adam’s new transition.style, a clip-path() based homage to Daniel Edan’s masterpiece. Maybe if that approach was paired with instant.page it would be as fast as any other internal link click.

There are other players trying to figure this out, like smoothState.js and Swup. The trick being: intercept the action to move to the next page, run the animation first, then load the next page, and animate the new page in. Technically, it slows things down a bit, but you can do it pretty efficiently and the movement adds enough distraction that the perceived performance might even be better.

Ideally, we wouldn’t have to animate the entire page but we could have total control to make more interesting transitions. Heck, I was doing that a decade ago with a page for a musician where clicking around the site just moved things around so that the audio would keep playing (and it was fun).

This would be a great place for the web platform to step in. I remember Jake pushed for this years ago, but I’m not sure if that went anywhere. Then we got portals which are… ok? Those are like if you load an iframe on the page and then animate it to take over the whole page (and update the URL). Not much animation nuance possible there, but you could certainly swipe some pages around or fade them in and out (hey here’s another one: Highway), like jQuery Mobile did back in ancient times.

The post Still Hoping for Better Native Page Transitions appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

You can support CSS-Tricks by being an MVP Supporter.


, , , , ,

Unfortunately, clip-path: path() is Still a No-Go

I was extremely excited when I first heard that clip-path: path() was coming to Firefox. Just imagine being able to easily code a breathing box like the one below with just one HTML element and very little CSS without needing SVG or a huge list of points inside the polygon function!

Chris was excited about the initial implementation, too.

How fun would this be:

Animated gif. Shows a square breathing in and out - its waistline smoothly contracts and then expands.
Breathing box.

I decided to give it a try. I went on CodePen, dropped a <div> in the HTML panel, gave it dimensions in viewport units so that it scales nicely, added a background so that I could see it. Then I went on MDN to check out some usage examples… and my fluffy cloud of a dream began to crash!

Note that clip-path: path() only works in Firefox 63-70 with the layout.css.clip-path-path.enabled flag set to true in about:config and in Firefox 71+ without needing to enable any flag. (Source: MDN.)

These were the examples I found:

path('M0 200L0 110A110 90 0 0 1 240 100L 200 340z') path('M.5 1C.5 1 0 .7 0 .3A.25 .25 1 1 1 .5 .3 .25 .25 1 1 1 1 .3C1 .7 .5 1 .5 1Z')

What are those coordinates? The sad answer is pixel values! Those are used because the path() function takes an SVG <path> string as an argument which — like the value of the SVG d attribute on a <path> element — only contains one kind of coordinate value: unit-less pixels. In the SVG case, these pixels scale with the viewBox of the <svg> element but they don’t scale at all inside the CSS path() function!

This means the element always gets clipped to the same fixed area if we have a responsive element with a path() value for the clip-path property. For example, consider a square .box whose edge length is 35vw. We clip it to a heart using the path() function:

clip-path: path('M256 203C150 309 150 309 44 203 15 174 15 126 44 97 73 68 121 68 150 97 179 68 227 68 256 97 285 126 285 174 256 203')

This heart shape stays the same size while the dimensions of our actual .box element changes with the viewport:

Animated gif. Shows how the heart clipped using a fixed pixel path() doesn't fit within the element's bounding rectangle when its viewport-depending size goes down at small screen sizes.
The issue with a fixed pixel path().

This is bad news here in 2020, where responsive design is the standard, not the exception. Save for the odd case where the element we want to clip actually has a fixed pixel size, the path() function is completely useless! We’re still better off using an actual SVG today, or even a polygon() approximation value for clip-path. In short, path() is still in need of improvement, despite getting off the ground.

Amelia Bellamy-Royds has suggested two possibilities here:

Option 1: Allow calc() values/units inside path data. This would probably be done while extending SVG path syntax in general.

Option 2: Specify viewBox in clip-path declaration, scale path to fit.

I personally prefer the first option. The only advantage the second one offers over using SVG is the fact that we don’t have to include an actual SVG. That said, including an actual SVG is always going to have better support.

The first option, however, could be a huge improvement over using SVG — at least enough of an improvement to justify using clip-path on an HTML element instead of including an SVG inside it. Let’s consider the breathing box at the top of this post. Using SVG, we have the following markup:

<svg viewBox='-75 -50 150 100'>   <path/> </svg>

Note that the viewBox is set such that the 0,0 point is dead in the middle. This means we’ve got to make the coordinates of the top-left corner (i.e. first two viewBox values) equal to minus half the viewBox dimensions (i.e. the last two viewBox values).

In SCSS, we set the edge length ($ l) of the initial square box as the smallest viewBox dimension (which is the smallest of the last two values). This is 100 in our case.

We start the path from the top-left corner of our square box. This means a move to (M) command to this point, with coordinates that are both equal to minus half the length of the edge.

We then go down to the bottom-left corner. This requires drawing a vertical line with a length that equals an edge length ($ l) and goes down, in the positive direction of the y axis. So, we’ll use the v command.

Next, we go to the bottom-right corner. We’ll draw a horizontal line with a length that equals an edge length ($ l) and goes right, in the positive direction of the x axis. We’ll use the h command to make that happen.

Going to the top-right corner means drawing another vertical line of with a length equal to the edge length ($ l), so we will use the v command again — only this time, the difference is the fact that we go in the opposite direction of the y axis, meaning we use the same coordinates, but with a minus sign.

Putting it all together, we have the SCSS that allows us to create the initial square box:

.box {   d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l} v#{$ l} h#{$ l} v#{-$ l}');   fill: darkorange }

The generated CSS (where $ l is replaced with 100) looks like this:

.box {   d: path('M-50,-50 v100 h100 v-100');   fill: darkorange; }

The result can be seen in the interactive demo below where hovering a part of the path data highlights the corresponding part in the resulting SVG and the other way around:

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

However, if we want the lateral edges to breathe, we can’t use straight lines. Let’s replace those with quadratic Bézier (q) ones. The end point remains the same, which is one edge length down along the same vertical line. We travel by 0,#{$ l} to get there.

But what about the control point we need to specify before that? We place the point to be vertically midway between the start and end points, meaning we go down to it by half of we travel to get to the end point.

And let’s say that, horizontally, we place it by a quarter of an edge length to the side in one direction or the other. If we want the lines to protrude to widen the box or squeeze them in to narrow it, we need to do something like this:

d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}           q#{-.25*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}           h#{$ l}           v#{-$ l}'); /* swollen box */  d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}           q#{.25*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}           h#{$ l}           v#{-$ l}'); /* squished box */

This compiles to the following CSS:

d: path('M-50,-50           q-25,50 0,100           h100           v-100'); /* swollen box */  d: path('M-50,-50           q25,50 0,100           h100           v-100'); /* squished box */

The interactive demo below shows how this path works. You can hover over path data components to see them highlighted on the SVG graphic. You can also toggle between the swollen and squished versions.

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

This is only the left edge. We need to do the same thing for the right edge as well. The difference here is that we’re going from the bottom-right corner to the top-right corner instead, which is up (in the negative direction of the y axis). We’ll place the control point outside the box to get the wide ox effect, which also means placing it to the right of its endpoints (in the positive direction of the x axis). Meanwhile, we’ll place the control point inside to get the narrow box effect, which means placing it to the left of its endpoints (in the negative direction of the x axis).

d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}           q#{-.25*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}           h#{$ l}           q#{.25*$ l},#{-.5*$ l} 0,#{-$ l}'); /* swollen box */  d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}           q#{.25*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}           h#{$ l}           q#{-.25*$ l},#{-.5*$ l} 0,#{-$ l}'); /* squished box */

The above SCSS generates the CSS below:

d: path('M-50,-50           q-25,50 0,100           h100           q25,-50 0,100'); /* swollen box */  d: path('M-50,-50           q25,50 0,100           h100           q-25,-50 0,-100'); /* squished box */

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

In order to get the breathing effect, we animate between the swollen state and the squished state:

.box {   d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}             q#{-.25*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}             h#{$ l}             q#{.25*$ l},#{-.5*$ l} 0,#{-$ l}'); /* swollen box */   animation: breathe .5s ease-in-out infinite alternate }  @keyframes breathe {   to {     d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}               q#{.25*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}               h#{$ l}               q#{-.25*$ l},#{-.5*$ l} 0,#{-$ l}'); /* squished box */   } }

Since the only thing that differs between the two states is the sign of the horizontal difference to the control points (the sign of the first number after the quadratic Bézier curve q command), we can simplify things with a mixin:

@mixin pdata($ s: 1) {   d: path('M#{-.5*$ l},#{-.5*$ l}             q#{-.25*$ s*$ l},#{.5*$ l} 0,#{$ l}             h#{$ l}             q#{.25*$ s*$ l},#{-.5*$ l} 0,#{-$ l}') }  .box {   @include pdata();   animation: breathe .5s ease-in-out infinite alternate }  @keyframes breathe { to { @include pdata(-1) } }

This is pretty much what I’m doing for the actual breathing box demo, though the motion is slightly more discreet. Still, this does absolutely nothing for the generated CSS — we still have two long, ugly and almost identical paths in the compiled code.

However, if we were able to use a <div>, clipped with a clip-path: path() that supported all sorts of values, including calc() values inside, then we could make the sign a custom property --sgn, which we could then animate between -1 and 1 with the help of Houdini.

div.box {   width: 40vmin; height: 20vmin;   background: darkorange;   --sgn: 1;   clip-path: path(M 25%,0%                   q calc(var(--sgn)*-25%),50% 0,100%                   h 50%                   q calc(var(--sgn)*25%),-50% 0,-100%);   animation: breathe .5s ease-in-out infinite alternate }  @keyframes breathe { to { --sgn: -1 } }

Being able to do this would make a whole world of difference. Our element would scale nicely with the viewport and so would the breathing box we clip out of it. And, most importantly, we wouldn’t need to repeat this clipping path in order to get the two different versions of it (the swollen one and the squished one), because using the sign custom property (--sgn) inside a calc() value would do the trick. As it is right now, however, clip-path: path() is pretty much useless.

The post Unfortunately, clip-path: path() is Still a No-Go appeared first on CSS-Tricks.


, , , ,

What the web still is

Being a pessimist is an easy thing to fall back on, and I’m trying to be better about it. As we close the year out, I thought it would be a good exercise to take stock of the state of the web and count our blessings.


We don’t use the internet to do just one thing. With more than two decades of globally interconnected computers, the web allows us to use it for all manner of activity.

This includes platforms, processes, and products that existed before the web came into being, and also previously unimagined concepts and behaviors. Thanks to the web, we can all order takeout the same way we can all watch two women repair a space station in realtime.


There is still no one single arbiter you need to petition to sign off on the validity of your idea, or one accepted path for going about to make it happen. Any website can link out to, or be linked to, without having to pay a tax or file pre-approval paperwork.

While we have seen a consolidation of the services needed to run more sophisticated web apps, you can still put your ideas out for the entire world to see with nothing more than a static HTML page. This fact was, and still is, historically unprecedented.


The internet has been called the most hostile environment to develop for. Someone who works on the web has to consider multiple browsers, the operating systems they are installed on, and all the popular release versions of both. They also need to consider screen size and quality, variable network conditions, different form factors and input modes, third party scripts, etc. This is to say nothing about serving an unknown amount of unknown users, each with their own thoughts, feelings, goals, abilities, motivations, proficiencies, and device modifications.

If you do it right, you can build a website or a web app so that it can survive a lot of damage before it is rendered completely inoperable. Frankly, the fact that the web works at all is nothing short of miraculous.

The failsafes, guardrails, redundancies, and other considerations built into the platform from the packet level on up allow this to happen. Honoring them honors the thought, care, and planning that went into the web’s foundational principles.


Most websites now make use of media queries to ensure their content reads and works well across a staggeringly large amount of devices. This efficient technology choice is fault-tolerant, has a low barrier of entry, and neatly side-steps the myriad problems you get with approaches such as device-sniffing and/or conditionally serving massive piles of JavaScript.

Responsive Design was, and still is revolutionary. It was the right answer, at the right place and time. It elegantly handled the compounding problem of viewport fragmentation as the web transformed from something new and novel into something that is woven into our everyday lives.


In addition to being responsive, the web works across a huge range of form factors, device capabilities, and specialized browsing modes. The post you are currently reading can show up on a laptop, a phone, a Kindle, a TV, a gas station pump, a video game console, a refrigerator, a car, a billboard, an oscilloscope—heck, even a space shuttle (if you’re reading this from space, please, please, please let me know).

It will work with a reading mode that helps a person focus, dark and high contrast modes that will help a person see, and any number of specialized browser extensions that help people get what they need. I have a friend who inverts her entire display to help prevent triggering migraines, and the web just rolls with it. How great is that?

Web content can be read, translated, spoken aloud, copied, clipped, piped into your terminal, forked, remixed, scraped by a robot, output as Braille, and even played as music. You can increase the size of its text, change its font and color, and block parts you don’t want to deal with—all in the service of making it easier for you to consume. That is revolutionary when compared to the media that came before it.

Furthermore, thanks to things like Progressive Web Apps and Web Platform Features, the web now blends seamlessly into desktops and home screens. These features allow web content to behave like traditional apps and are treated as first-class citizens by the operating systems that support them. You don’t even necessarily need to be online for them to work!


The current landscape of accessibility compliance is a depressing state of affairs. WebAIM’s Million report, and subsequent update, highlights this with a sobering level of detail.

Out of the top one million websites sampled, ~98% of home pages had programmatically detectable Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) errors. This represents a complete, categorical failure of our industry on every conceivable level, from developers and designers, to framework maintainers, all the way up to those who help steer the future of the platform.

And yet.

In that last stubborn two percent lives a promise of the web. Web accessibility—the ability for someone to use a website or web app regardless of their ability or circumstance—grants autonomy. It represents a rare space where a disabled individual may operate free from the immense amount of bias, misunderstanding, and outright hate that is pervasive throughout much of society. This autonomy represents not only freedom for social activities but also employment opportunities for a population that is routinely discriminated against.

There is a ton of work to do, and we do not have the luxury of defeatism. I’m actually optimistic about digital accessibility’s future. Things like Inclusive Design have shifted the conversation away from remediation into a more holistic, proactive approach to product design.

Accessibility, long viewed as an unglamorous topic, has started to appear as a mainstream, top-level theme in conference and workshop circuits, as well as popular industry blogs. Sophisticated automated accessibility checkers can help prevent you from shipping inaccessible code. Design systems are helping to normalize the practice at scale. And most importantly, accessibility practitioners are speaking openly about ableism.


While the average size of a website continues to rise, the fact remains that you can achieve an incredible amount of functionality with a small amount of code. That’s an important thing to keep in mind.

It has never been more affordable to use the web. In the United States, you can buy an internet-ready smartphone for ~$ 40. Emerging markets are adopting feature phones such as the JioPhone (~$ 15 USD) at an incredible rate. This means that access to the world’s information is available to more people—people who traditionally may have never been able to have such a privilege.

Think about it: owning a desktop computer represented having enough steady income to be able to support permanent housing, as well as consistent power and phone service. This created an implicit barrier to entry during the web’s infancy.

The weakening of this barrier opens up unimaginable amounts of opportunity, and is an excellent reminder that the web really is for everyone. With that in mind, it remains vital to keep our payload sizes down. What might be a reflexive CMD + R for you might be an entire week’s worth of data for someone else.


There are more browsers available than I have fingers and toes to count on. This is a good thing. Like any other category of software, each browser is an app that does the same general thing in the same general way, but with specific design decisions made to prioritize different needs and goals.

My favorite browser, Firefox, puts a lot of its attention towards maintaining the privacy and security of its users. Brave is similar in that regard. Both Edge and Safari are bundled with their respective operating systems, and have interfaces geared towards helping the widest range of users browse web content. Browsers like Opera and Vivaldi are geared towards tinkerers, people who like a highly customized browsing experience. Samsung Internet is an alternative browser for Android devices that can integrate with their proprietary hardware. KaiOS and UC browsers provide access to millions of feature phones, helping them to have smartphone-esque functionality. Chrome helps you receive more personalized ads efficiently debug JavaScript.

Browser engine diversity is important as well, although the ecosystem has been getting disturbingly small as of late. The healthy competition multiple engines generates translates directly to the experience becoming better for the most important people in the room: Those who rely on the web to live their everyday lives.

Speaking of people, let’s discuss the web’s quality of diversity and how it applies to them: Our industry, like many others, has historically been plagued by ills such as misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism. However, the fact remains that the ability to solve problems in the digital space represents a rare form of leverage that allows minoritized groups to have upward economic mobility.

If you can’t be motivated by human decency, it’s no secret that more diverse teams perform better. We’ve made good strides in the past few years towards better representation, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.

Listen to, and signal boost the triumphs, frustrations, and fears of the underrepresented in our industry. Internalize their observations and challenge your preconceived notions and biases. Advocate for their right to be in this space. Educate yourself on our industry’s history. Support things like codes of conduct, which do the hard work of modeling and codifying expectations for behavior. All of this helps to push against a toxic status quo and makes the industry better for everyone.


The web is built by consensus, enabling a radical kind of functionality. This interoperability—the ability for different computer systems to be able to exchange information—is built from a set of standards we have all collectively agreed on.

Chances are good that a web document written two decades ago will still work with the latest version of any major browser. Any web document written by someone else—even someone on the opposite side of the globe—will also work. It will also continue to work on browsers and devices that have yet to be invented. I challenge you to name another file format that supports this level of functionality that has an equivalent lifespan.

This futureproofing by way of standardization also allows for a solid foundation of support for whatever comes next. Remember the principle of versatile: It is important to remember that these standards are also not prescriptive. We’re free to take these building blocks use arrange them in a near-infinite number of ways.


Furthermore, this consensus is transparent. While the process may seem slow sometimes, it is worth highlighting the fact that the process is highly transparent. Anyone who is invested may follow, and contribute to web standards, warts and all.

It’s this openness that helps to prevent things like hidden agendas, privatization, lock-in, and disproportionate influence from consolidating power. Open-source software and protocols and, most importantly, large-scale cooperation also sustain the web platform’s long-term growth and health. Think of web technologies that didn’t make it: Flash, Silverlight, ActiveX, etc. All closed, for-profit, brittle, and private.

It also helps to disincentive more abstract threats, things like adversarial interoperability and failure to disclose vulnerabilities. These kinds of hazards are a good thing to remember any time you find yourself frustrated with the platform.

Make no mistake: I feel a lot of what makes the web great is actively being dismantled, either inadvertently or deliberately. But as I mentioned earlier, cynicism is easy. My wish for next year? That all the qualities mentioned here are still present. My New Year’s resolution? To help ensure it.

The post What the web still is appeared first on CSS-Tricks.