I agree to a degree, but I think that's where HTML originally became the winner as it as about MORE than just pen and paper.

The first class citizen of the web is text. Text remains the most accessible and usable media, and if you're going to choose a language on which to base communication of ideas, you could do far worse than the writing norms of the "language of international business and science", English.

Which is probably why the TLDR twitter generation nose-breathing morons screaming "aaah, wall of text" hate HTML so much.

Though I do think it would be fascinating to see one built on some other language with entirely different grammatical rules.

That's really a place most people screw up with in understanding and using HTML in an accessible manner. The idea that HTML is for saying what things are or would be for grammatical and structural reasons based on English language writing norms. NOT what it looks like on pen and paper, or on screens, or any other presentational concept. No, it’s about WHY you would use those ideas in any type of writing.

As I’m saying all the time, if you choose any of your markup — tags, classes, or id’s — based on the tag’s default appearance, you’re likely choosing all the wrong markup for all the wrong reasons.

Again, something HTML 3.2 took a giant steaming dump on, then 4 Strict tried to drag us kicking and screaming back to doing properly, and then the whatWG pissing on the ashes to ingratiate itself with all the know-nothings who never advanced their skills past 3.2 and deployed under the guise of 4 tranny. The same ignorant fools who get so easily suckered by the bleeding edge of 1997 thinking that are HTML/CSS frameworks.

The whole point of HTML from day one -- at least as I came to understand it 15-20 years ago when I stopped sleazing out 4 Tranny like everyone else was -- is to convey the grammatical and structural meaning of text content, enhanced by media -- in a way by which the user-agent could convey it regardless of the limited capabilities of the target device or the disabilities and limitations of the user. It's a really good idea, it's shockingly simple to implement... and I really don't understand why people struggle with the idea so blasted much.

Apart from the fact that apparently what was 4th, 6th, and 10th grade English (standard, not even prep) for me in the 70's is now 3rd year University English Major's coursework.

Actually felt kind of insulting when in the '80's they repeated the same stuff we already knew, and the reading material was dumbed down to the junior reader level. "The Black Cauldron" is suitable for a class of 10 year olds. It's not what an English teacher should be assigning to 16 and 17 year old students.

Nelson always kind of reminded me of Richard Stallman or Frank Moller. Very good at talking the talk, glad-handing, and getting people to fork over checks to keep their bullshit story afloat, but extremely bad about delivering anything of actual value. Providing JUST enough to make it look like it’s real and making progress, but not enough to give away that the whole thing is actually a scam.

Basically more mainstream versions of Elizabeth Holmes or Geraldine Carmichael, just much more low key and better at staying under the radar of regulators and prosecutors.

But that's why I wrote an entire article about propaganda techniques and how they're used to saddle up the ignorant, apathetic, and just plain wishful thinking marks.