Sketchers.com

mark_bowytz

Got a hot tip in TDWTF's inbox from Chris H.:

Go to sketchers.com -> (rightclick) view source -> head explode

Just...Wow.

reverendryan1

Hmm, no view source required...

apapadimoulis

Tomorrow's article can for another day... this epic WTF has been front page'd - http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Sketchy-Skecherscom.aspx

blakeyrat

WorldOfWarcraft.com did that for ages, before they redesigned it. It never occurred to me to submit it as a WTF, damnit.

Edit: I might actually be thinking of Bungie.net... one of those two sites did it, but both no longer do.

Gurth

I like the way they disabled the inline Javascript and CSS and saw a need to add HTML escapes for carriage returns:

[code]<script language="javascript">
function toggle() {
var vid = document.getElementById("video");
var text = document.getElementById("displayText");
if(vid.style.display == "block") {
vid.style.display = "none";
text.innerHTML = "show";
}
else {
vid.style.display = "block";
text.innerHTML = "hide";
}
} [/code]

ASheridan2

It was World of Warcraft, but at least there was a use-case for that. A lot of players put together guild websites (I was amongst them) and it was easier to pull content from their XML than try to scrape the HTML, as the HTML changed quite frequently, but the XML remained fairly consistent. Of course, I wouldn't have had to parse the XML if they'd offered a proper API, but at the time (not sure if they do now, I don't play the game anymore) they didn't, and the only way to grab guild/player stats was from parsing the XML, and they actually promoted this method in their forums.

I think they now may have split the main site off from the armory, as I believe they used to all be run from the same framework or something like that.

gobes

@Mark Bowytz said:

Got a hot tip in TDWTF's inbox from Chris H.:

Go to sketchers.com -> (rightclick) view source -> head explode

Just...Wow.

What the BOOM

But why, oh why did you want to view the source?

blakeyrat

@ASheridan2 said:

It was World of Warcraft, but at least there was a use-case for that.

Thanks for confirming my sanity; I KNEW I'd seen this before, and on a much bigger/more complex site than Sketchers, too.

And yet both of us failed to realized the reaction it'd get from the WTF community. Sad.

alegr

So that's how the sausage is made.

BPFH

I've seen plenty of websites (mostly blogs) that won't load the content unless I let them run Javascript.

But it's been a long time since I've seen a website that won't render at all without Javascript...

dhromed

Just for kicks, I turned off JS and loaded up twitter.

It renders. It popped up a message (how thoughtful!) but it renders just fine. I amd surprised. I thought it was 90-100% pieced together from JS as well.

DOA

I took a look at XSL a while back and decided that the brainpower required to learn it was well beyond what I was willing to spare on simple curiocity.

What exactly is a legitimate use for it? Is there some case where XSL has an advantage over other technologies?

UrzaMTG

@Gurth said:

I like the way they disabled the inline Javascript and CSS and saw a need to add HTML escapes for carriage returns:

&lt;script language=&quot;javascript&quot;&gt; &#xD;
function toggle() {&#xD;
	var vid = document.getElementById(&quot;video&quot;);&#xD;
	var text = document.getElementById(&quot;displayText&quot;);&#xD;
	if(vid.style.display == &quot;block&quot;) {&#xD;
    		vid.style.display = &quot;none&quot;;&#xD;
		text.innerHTML = &quot;show&quot;;&#xD;
  	}&#xD;
	else {&#xD;
		vid.style.display = &quot;block&quot;;&#xD;
		text.innerHTML = &quot;hide&quot;;&#xD;
	}&#xD;
} &#xD;

I feel like I'm getting trolled by this code. Look, it's LAUGHING AT ME!

bjolling

@DOA said:

I took a look at XSL a while back and decided that the brainpower required to learn it was well beyond what I was willing to spare on simple curiocity.
What exactly is a legitimate use for it? Is there some case where XSL has an advantage over other technologies?

XSL transformations are a direct way of transforming your XML data into a differently structured XML document. In the case of the OP, the raw XML data is transformed in XHTML.

Honestly I don't have a problem with the basic idea: load your XML data from any data source, transform it into XHTML and then apply a CSS. It looks like a nice and clean separation of data, presentation and formatting concerns. However, I would have executed the XSLT server side and made the XML publicly available via a web service if the raw data was needed for other purposes as well.

Isn't this what happens when you execute a unit test in Visual Studio? Test results are saved into an XML (easy accessible programmatically) that you can also browse in a userfriendly way thanks to the included XSLT?

MiffTheFox

@dhromed said:

Just for kicks, I turned off JS and loaded up twitter.
It renders. It popped up a message (how thoughtful!) but it renders just fine. I amd surprised. I thought it was 90-100% pieced together from JS as well.

Granted you can't actually do anything once it renders... (Then again, I'm still on Old New Twitter so I don't know about the new UI. No I have no idea how and I do want to switch.)

Also before now I had no idea I could turn off JavaScript in Chrome.

Cassidy

@bjolling said:

@DOA said:
I took a look at XSL a while back and decided that the brainpower required to learn it was well beyond what I was willing to spare on simple curiocity.
What exactly is a legitimate use for it? Is there some case where XSL has an advantage over other technologies?
XSL transformations are a direct way of transforming your XML data into a differently structured XML document. In the case of the OP, the raw XML data is transformed in XHTML.

Pedantic dickweedery time: XSL is a language used for transforming XML into something else:

XSLT can be used to transform XML data into XHTML for website presentation (which bjolling described above)
XSL-FO can be used to transform the XML into a PDF (or Word, Excel, etc) format.

</pedant>

XSL is pretty powerful in what it can do, and I've used it in a number of places, for example having my CV as XML data then render it into XHTML for a website but PDF for printable copy. I use it for a lot of data re-purposing: I've taken XML feeds from various comics sites and run them through an XSLT that delivers just the comic without the surrounding blurb, so I've got a page that collates several cartoons together into one.

TRWTF is where it's an overkill - such as an enterprisey flexible scalable solution involving XML (and related) technology for a small problem - and the finished product requires a great deal of developer and machine effort to deliver something that alternative solutions could have done in a fraction of the cost.

Another common WTF is people who have encountered unpleasant experiences involving bad XML implementations then hear "XML", "XSL", "XHTML" (and anything else beginning with X, apart from "XXX-rated") and automatically pour scorn upon it, automatically assuming that it's a steaming turd that should be burnt to a crisp. I know this is more of a problem with ignorance and behaviour rather than the technology at hand, but shite implementations in the early days by technophiles masturbating over W3C specs claiming XML to be magical gold dust that solves all interoperability issues has tarnished XML/XS/etc with a reputation in some areas that's hard to shake.

I'd recommend dipping your toe into it. Hell, if you want, I'll forward a few guides of my own to get your started. When I show people this stuff, it doesn't completely excite them (I don't evangelise it) but discussions quickly turn to ideas of where it can be used and how it can open up more options than the current systems in-situ. After you get a taster and decide against it.. well, that's your choice... but at least you can state for the record that you're aware of what it is and can give valid reasons for not using it, rather than remaining blissfully ignorant.[1]

[1] not saying you are, but I think you get my point about informed choices versus stubborn denial.