This is interesting, but what is really missing from the non-graphical (and non CSS/JS/WASM) web is a good search engine. Or, if there is one that returns only these kinds of results, I don't know it.
Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
101–110 of 198 posts
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#102I'm a fan of Lynx. React and angular have destroyed the semantic web.
Love Lynx and not particularly fond about JS or responsive frameworks. But I do not understand what React or Angular could have contributed that would be incompatible counter to or otherwise could have hampered the semantic web — so far as that would have ever been a viable thing is the first place. Can you elaborate on how react and angular have destroyed the semantic web?
Not GP but heres what I think they meant.
In the old days you could look at at raw non-rendered HTML and it would be so simple that you can render it in your head.
With the advent of more sophisticated web frameworks like the one mentioned, that’s no longer the case. The site consists of MBs of scripts and templates that take a gigawatt to render.
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#103I'm a fan of Lynx. React and angular have destroyed the semantic web.
I quickly moved on to Links when I was using Lynx for a while (some years ago) as it optionally did images and could work with some JavaScript. Depends on ones use case.
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#104I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…
I mean, that's the source of the complaint though.
It's 2023. If it doesn't work on google.com, it's not a browser that works on "The Internet" (due to conflation of terms over the years, people assume that "The Internet" means "The Web," especially when the term "browser" is mixed in there).
To be clear though, a much better user interface for retrieving and displaying small documents through gopher, gemini, and finger in addition to HTTP is pretty cool.
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#105I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…
Restricted functionality is a security benefit - could be interesting in some scenarios... Not mentioned by the project's presentation, but there has to be an audience there.
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#106[deleted]
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#107I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…
I think the problem is that they are trying to sell a radio as if it were a TV.
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#108I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…
I mean, that's the source of the complaint though. It's 2023. If it doesn't work on google.com, it's not a browser that works on "The Internet" (due to conflation of terms over the years, people assume that "The Internet" means "The Web," especially when the term "browser" is mixed in there). To be clear though, a much better user interface for retrieving and displaying small documents through gopher, gemini, and fin…
What a sad mindset to believe google = internet ...that's just sad, especially for HN
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#109This is interesting, but what is really missing from the non-graphical (and non CSS/JS/WASM) web is a good search engine. Or, if there is one that returns only these kinds of results, I don't know it.
Well, search.marginalia.nu exists, but it would be kind of hard to use it with this browser, since along with CSS and JS they apparently also don't believe in input elements.
Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites
#110I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…
I think the problem is that they are trying to sell a radio as if it were a TV.
Except, of course, that they're not selling anything.