Except, that’s exactly how html originally started: “oh it’s a nice, machine-readable way of structuring a document, where users can plug in their preferred reader and use it however they like!”
lite.cnn.com just starts that process all over again:
“Lifehack: you can access websites by lite.<domain> and you’ll get a less hostile experience because it’s intended to be accessible.”
“Lifehack: Use the extension LiteBrowse, which automatically goes to the light version of a site and then prettifies it for you.”
‘Oh my! Our analytics say most users are going to the light version! Let’s spice that up and do a UX revamp on it, help improve engagement and get ad clicks.’
‘Oh, wow, someone make a framework to churn out these really profession lite versions of a page, and wow, they’re so eye-popping and let you incorporate JavaScript…’
Earlier thread on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961
> The principles of universality of access irrespective of hardware or software platform, network infrastructure, language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental impairment are core values in Web design
Tim Berners-Lee https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html (1998)
Except your point ignores the reality of the situation.
Whatever HTML was intended to be-- it isn't now.
And whatever lite.domain is intended to be, it won’t be after a few years if you don’t make the change in practices that led to html’s fate.