Live data from Hacker News

WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

joeyh.name

81–90 of 226 posts

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#81
post #31

> and making a whole new web browser from the ground up is effectively impossible because the browsers vendors have weaponized web standards complexity against any newcomers I would argue the exact opposite. Web standards have steadily increased in quality. The web has become much less quirky over the years and you no longer need to emulate broken browsers in order to get a functional browsing experience. Building a…

Exactly, impossible is what Google, Apple and Microsoft (and Mozilla) want you to believe - and they do everything to make it happen with more and more, ever more irrelevant APIs. And people believed them for a decade now.

Very happy that Ladybird doesn't believe the monopolists propaganda.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#82
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the market share. And look at how much breakage report there is with Firefox vs. Chrome or Safari (not to say the return of "this website works better with Chrome" disclaimers, as if we were back to IE6).

Do you have a source for real world sites broken? It’s extremely rare for me and I exclusively use Safari and Firefox.

When I use porkbun in Firefox, it hangs and has to be kill -9'ed.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#83
post #23

You can already do this. You don't need a special browser. This approach always sounds great until you consider how native input, text selection, copy-paste, etc. behave on mobile. Not to mention accessibility, screen readers, and so on.

My first thoughts exactly. How do you prevent this from turning into what we had with flash if you don't provide the framework to build the UI components.

Turning the web into what we had with flash except for the many security issues seems to be the way things are headed. Not that I'm happy about it, but more and more web applications are going that route.

The design behind WASM helps keep this iteration of Macromedia/Flash/Java/ActiveX stay quite secure, at least until people start adding the extra APIs that a certain subset of WASM enthusiasts trying to turn WASM into another JVM are going for.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#84
I know it's a rant, but it makes no sense. The web is complex, but for 90% of the web I can still manipulate the DOM - even in apps which use frameworks like React. The ability to manipulate the DOM makes the internet so much more pleasant than otherwise - a world without ad blockers would be quite bad.

Rendering on to a surface would be bad for everyone. Tbh, I think the web is doing great. I am among those (perhaps a minority) who think that web apps should occupy space which is currently held by native apps; even at the cost of complexity and new APIs.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#85

I proposed a similar idea (before WASM was a thing) in 2015 on the W3 TAG mailing list, where I simply said why can't the site owners tell the user's browser what browser engine, including specialized ones, should be loaded to render and interact with their site/app. It was dismissed with idiots from the browser vendors saying it's impossible because of ABI compatibility etc. I kid you not, 10 years ago, and then som…

The Content-Type header tells your Firefox 3 browser whether to use the HTML rendering engine, the XHTML rendering engine, the XUL rendering engine, or the Adobe Flash rendering engine. Is that what you mean?

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#86
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flutter even had a DOM renderer which should in theory have fixed approximately all the issues (I don’t know for sure, I never knowingly encountered anything using it), but they’ve killed it off fairly recently, doubling down on the fundamentally unfixable direction that is the pure-canvas approach.

They still seem to have something, from this page: https://docs.flutter.dev/ui/accessibility-and-internationali... * Inspect the HTML tree containing the ARIA attributes generated by Flutter. Wouldn't that help with SEO as well?

That gives you a distinct accessibility tree in the DOM, which is kinda dumb as an approach. One of the reasons for going pure-canvas on the web was supposed to be performance (I don’t think it was ever true, though—only if comparing with a bad DOM implementation), and if you have to enable this accessibility DOM, you’re guaranteeing you’re doing double work. And no, on the web you can’t just do it when you need it: you can’t poll if it’s needed. All you can do in that case is to present screen reader users with a “this page is currently empty, press this button to unbreak it” button. (Aside: I’ve seen that done once. And the button was broken.)

But the problems we’re talking about are far broader than “does my screen reader work”. Do my links work properly—Ctrl+Click, middle-click, long press, hover? (This one is fixable with only mild compromise. Those that follow are not.) Does my text render correctly? Can I select it and use my browser’s context menu or other similar tools? Does content scroll properly, at correct rates, with correct inertia, without jank or at least a frame’s latency? It’s these sorts of things that Flutter’s pure-canvas approach cannot fix, and they affect, in smaller ways, a lot more people.

I’ve written more specifically about the problems here on HN quite a few times. Search and you’ll find ’em. I really should get down to writing a detailed article about it all at some point… it’s been quite a few years.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#88

> So there are only 2 web browser engines, and it seems likely there will soon only be 1, and making a whole new web browser from the ground up is effectively impossible because the browsers vendors have weaponized web standards complexity against any newcomers. Maybe eventually someone will succeed and there will be 2 again. Best case. What a situation. The premise of this article seems completely wrong. Chromium, S…

The "weaponization of complexity" is real—modern web standards are an endless labyrinth of APIs, performance optimizations, and security requirements. Large players like Google have the resources to dictate how the web evolves, while any newcomer faces insurmountable hurdles in achieving compatibility, security, and speed. Even major tech companies have tried and failed (e.g., Microsoft ditching EdgeHTML for Chromium…

With the way that AI is unfolding right now, this might be an outdated problem fairly soon. In 2026 if you can just tell your AI to build a new full-featured browser before you go to sleep, you might have something in the morning.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#89

The web had this before briefly. Back in the 90s and 00s, some people just wanted to use Flash. They treated the web browser like it was just a way to run executables in a window. Nothing worked right. Bookmarks, search engines, command-line tools, user preferences for font size, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links……

> Nothing worked right. One thing worked right: the app looked the same and acted the same everywhere where it could run.

No, that definitely wasn’t the case. Things that worked fine as Flash on a Windows machine could render weird on a Mac or Linux. They definitely claimed this though.
Post reply on HN