| ▲ | stonecharioteer a day ago |
| I'm curious. Did you ask it to use tables and no CSS? In 1996, We had only css1. Ask it to use tables to do this, perhaps. |
|
| ▲ | lagniappe a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| We actually had a myriad of competing specs. CSS proper wasn't released until december 1996. |
| |
| ▲ | thecr0w a day ago | parent [-] | | Any names for the competing specs? Maybe i could try re-prompting with that direction. | | |
| ▲ | lagniappe a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Models are trained with content scraped from the net, for the most part. The availability of content pertaining to those specs is almost nil, and of no SEO value. Ergo, models for the most part will only have a cursory knowledge of a spec that your browser will never be able to parse because that isn't the spec that won. Nonetheless, here is a link to a list of the specs you asked for: https://www.w3.org/Style/History/Overview.en.html | | |
| ▲ | boie0025 a day ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for sharing that. I read through a lot of this. Interesting to read those perspectives in the context of today. | | |
| ▲ | lagniappe a day ago | parent [-] | | Much obliged. Have a good weekend. Your new gray hairs are en route :) |
|
| |
| ▲ | wanderingstan a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There were specs competing for adoption, but only tables (the old way) and CSS were actually adopted by browsers. So no point trying to use some other positioning technique. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | thecr0w a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yes yes great question! I tried your suggestion and also tried giving it various more general versions of the limitations presented by earlier generations. Claude's instinct initially was actually to limit itself to less modern web standards. Unfortunately, nothing got those planets to be in the right place. |
