Posts by uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh494

"To the question of why the org didn't use the opportunity of server-side rendering to deliver more human-readable HTML that would be better for parsing and accessibility tools..." Just a friendly reminder that the goal is NEVER to make website HTML more "human-readable." The major goals (aside from obviously rendering webpages properly) are: 1) to be easily and readily parseable by search engines; and 2) to be unambiguously readable by accessibility tools. Neither of these goals has ANYTHING to do with being human-readable. In fact it's easy to devise scenarios in which making HTML markup more human-readable would harm both SEO and accessibility goals.

Related: i'd suggest moving past the idea that the goal of any website should be to be easily parsed by scrapers (like the ones people write to extract and repurpose content from web pages such as the BBC's). Many news organizations don't WANT to make it easier for third parties to repurpose their content without permission or attribution - news-scrapers do not have some inalienable right to your site being easily scraped. Not to say that all scraping is "evil" - just that it's nearly always sort of a hack. And organizations who DO want to make their content available to third parties generally expose APIs for that very purpose.