Forking the Web
dillo-browser.org
Forking the Web
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: Forking the Web
#2Seems like somebody is not accepting that every successful project will grow and become unwieldy like this. This is all legacy backwards compatibility of all iterated ideas that now you have to support.
Re: Forking the Web
#3I feel like that's not solving any of the problems I think of the Web as having.
You can certainly make something with it, but I can't imagine most people finding a use for it.
Re: Forking the Web
#4I support forking the web, into the simple information web services that the web started with. This is a magnificent idea.
Re: Forking the Web
#5I feel like that's not solving any of the problems I think of the Web as having. You can certainly make something with it, but I can't imagine most people finding a use for it.
I think original web standards were solving a completely different problem: sharing information.
Modern Internet is 45% appearances and 50% search traffic optimizations. For better or worse we lost all usable registries of websites, we lost appearance-less and traffic considerations-less websites. Information-focused Web is pretty much dead.
Maybe these ideas did not scale and did not monetize that well, but we will never really know what information-focused version of Internet would have looked like because evolution took it elsewhere. Unless we try building another one with different principles and limitations at the core.
Re: Forking the Web
#6At this point we need a fork of not just the web but the entire internet, one built for privacy.
Re: Forking the Web
#7> A page can then be tested against the standard and reject or accept as compliant. Pages that don't conform with the specification won't be rendered. It is explicitly forbidden for clients to accept any page that doesn't conform with the specification.
it's as if nothing was learned from the XHTML debacle
Re: Forking the Web
#8Developers would rather fork the Web than admit Chrome is the new IE6 and stop targeting it.
Re: Forking the Web
#9> The specification must contain a non-ambiguous formal grammar that can be parsed easily. A page can then be tested against the standard and reject or accept as compliant. Pages that don't conform with the specification won't be rendered. It is explicitly forbidden for clients to accept any page that doesn't conform with the specification.
This is what XHTML was, and it was a complete disaster. There's a reason almost nobody serves XHTML with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type, and that reason is that getting a “parser error” (this is what browsers still do! try it!) is always worse than getting a page that 99% works.[0] I strongly believe that rejecting the robustness principle is a fatal mistake for a web-replacement project. The fact that horribly broken old sites can stay online and stay readable is a huge part of the web's value. Without that, it's not really “the web”, spiritually or otherwise.
[0] It's particularly “cool” how they simply do not work in the Internet Archive's Wayback machine. The page can be retrieved, but nobody can read it.
Re: Forking the Web
#10Ah yes, another "If I Were King" blog post. For an example of how it will turn out, look at how many JavaScript frameworks have been built to replace an overly complicated, unwieldy previous one.
oh and also https://xkcd.com/927/