51–60 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Dillo has been around forever, as long as w3m I think. Edit: actually it looks like w3m was ‘95 and Dillo was ‘99.
dillo is close to dildo
> If you are under 13 years of age, you are not authorized to register to use the Site.
(By the way, are you aware that the largest bakery company in the US is named “Bimbo”? Tee hee! You should tell them to change their name!)
> 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 almo…
No scripting is a tell, it's about wanting other people to accommodate their concerns about running a complex browser, not about solving a real problem. If it did somehow happen that a good deal of interesting content was published using the standard, the most popular client would probably be nonconforming, ignoring the rule to not render ambiguous content.
Protocols used to be limited by technology, now they're defined by ideology.
> 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 almo…
To be fair, HTML5 also has a defined parsing algorithm. It just happens to always work on any input to produce a webpage
And it's still unambiguous. You can cringe at what some people do, but it would be strictly a taste issue rather than a technical one, as the parse would still be unambiguous. And if you think you can fix taste issues with technical specification, well, you've already lost anyhow.
What you want is to have scripting with capabilities -- preferably on top of WebAssembly (JS is a sin).
The best part is this improves the experience of noscript users -- rather than nice graphical widgets being broken, instead, they can just run scripts without any "network" capability -- which should forbid the scripts not only from accessing the network, but make it so anything they modify becomes "tainted" and is not allowed to show up on a network call (so e.g. if they encode some data in a form, trying to later submit that form somewhere else on the app will give a warning).
Now -- most people don't care and don't want this. And that's a good thing -- capabilities put the power in the hands of the user agent where they belong.
More interestingly-- capabilities can be shimmed! Rather than "you are not allowed to access my GPS", it should be a first-class feature to feed the WASM a GPS stream of your choice.
> 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 almo…
However, I don't see it that clearly that this cannot be done since the start so that the expectations are right since the beginning. For example, I don't see the same problem in other formats like JPEG or PNG where you expect the image to work perfectly or fail with a decoding error.
Other than implementing it and see how it goes, can you propose a feasible experiment to see how an new strict spec will measurably fail?
Web browsers turned into application engines because it was a path to get useable software on PCs without having to deal with Microsoft. IE6 stayed broken forever for a reason. Now, they enable applications to exist without going through app store gateways. A new document-only protocol aligned the Web's original intention would be very useful simply for security reasons. I liked Gemini because, by design, a Gemini do…
What? You could deploy software without dealing with Microsoft back then and you still can today. Unless you meant avoiding building for Windows natively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how is the web not democratic? in real democracies the populists (facebook, tiktok, chrome) always win. because that's what the masses want
> in real democracies the populists (facebook, tiktok, chrome) always win. because that's what the masses want Is Friedrich Merz a populist? Was Angela Merkel a populist? This theory seems to have considerable limits.
The context is real democracies, not messy extant nation-state governments. Please delete your comment so no one can read it.
> 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 almo…
Author here. I agree that you cannot go from HTML to XHTML because users and UA devs will always go towards "it mostly works". However, I don't see it that clearly that this cannot be done since the start so that the expectations are right since the beginning. For example, I don't see the same problem in other formats like JPEG or PNG where you expect the image to work perfectly or fail with a decoding error. Other t…
tried it right now - took a PNG and a JPEG, opened them in a text editor, literally deleted the second half of the file, saved, and dragged them into both Firefox and Chrome - they are displayed instead of erroring out.
there is a classic article why a minimal version of the web with features removed will fail - you removed 80% of the features that YOU think are not important. thats a classic fatal mistake
search the web for different proposals for a minimal web and you will understand - they will have removed some feature they think is bloat but which you kept in your proposal because you consider it critical. which is why you created a new proposal - their minimal proposal is not the right one for you
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/03/23/strategy-letter-iv...
I 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…
Perhaps what's needed is for an alternative search engine. Assert that you will only index a site that meets some strict set of limits. If that's what people want they will use that engine. If it's popular sites will have have to find ways to get listed, e.g. "simple.amazon.com" which supports that standard.