| ▲ | alcover 11 hours ago |
| I wish for this new year we reboot the Web with a super light standard and accompanying ecosystem with - A small and efficient JS subset, HTML, CSS
- A family of very simple browsers that do just that
- A new Web that adheres to the above
That would make my year. |
|
| ▲ | qweqwe14 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This would never happen because there's zero incentive to do this. Browsers are complex because they solve a complex problem: running arbitrary applications in a secure manner across a wide range of platforms. So any "simple" browser you can come up with just won't work in the real world (yes, that means being compatible with websites that normal people use). |
| |
| ▲ | notKilgoreTrout 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have to disagree, AMP showed that even Google had an internal conflict with the results of WHATWG.. It's naturally quite hard to reach agreements on a subset when many parties will prefer to go backwards to everything but there situations like the first iPhone, ebooks, TV browsing, etc, where normal people buy simpler things and groups that use the simpler subset achieve more in total than those stuck in the complex only format. (There are even a lot of developers who would inherently drop any feature usage as soon as you can get 10% of users to bring down their stats on caniuse.com to bellow ~90%.) | |
| ▲ | alcover 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > that means being compatible with websites that normal people use No, new adhering websites would emerge and word of mouth would do the rest : normal people would see this fast nerd-web and want rid of their bloated day-to-day monster of a web life. One can still hope.. | | |
| ▲ | dmd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just like all those normal people want rid of their bloated day-to-day monster of a web and therefore go and do something like, say, install an ad blocker? Oh right. 99% of people don't do even that, much less switch their life over to entirely new websites. | | |
| ▲ | lioeters 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 99% of people In 2025, depending on the study, it is said that 31.5~42.7% of internet users now block ads. Nearly one-third of Americans (32.2%) use ad blockers, with desktop leading at 37%. | | |
| ▲ | dmd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wow. That's way higher than I thought. Huh! | | |
| ▲ | lioeters 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It actually gives me hope that we may find a way out of the enshittification of the web. |
|
| |
| ▲ | foobarian 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't care to run an ad blocker because sites are still bloated and slow. |
|
| |
| ▲ | riedel 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think both wearables and AI assistant could be an incentive on one hand, also towards a more HATEOAS web. However, I guess we haven't really figured out how to replace ad revenue as the primary incentive to make things as complex as possible. | |
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Zero incentive seems a little strong, | |
| ▲ | andrewmcwatters 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Lots of comments talking about how existing browsers can already do this, but the big benefit that current browsers can't give you is the sheer level of speed and efficiency that a highly restricted "lite web" browser could achieve, especially if the restrictions are made with efficiency in mind. The embedded use case is obvious, but it'd also be excellent for things like documentation — with such a browser you could probably have a dozen+ doc pages open with resource usage below that of a single regular browser tab. Perfect for things that you have sitting open for long periods of time. |
| |
| ▲ | alcover 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's it. Plus they would work neatly on old computers/phones. | |
| ▲ | zem 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | someone should embed it into dillo! |
|
|
| ▲ | dcminter 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| While we're wishing, can we split CSS into two parts - styling and layout? Also, I'd like to fix the spelling on the "referer" header... |
|
| ▲ | born-jre 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There could be a way:
This HTML-lite spec would be subset of current standard so that if you open this HTML lite page in normal browser it would still work. but HTML-lite browser would only open HTML-lite sites, apart from tech itch it could be used in someplace where not full browser is needed, especially if you are control content generation.
- TV screens UI
- some game engines embed chrome embed thing ( steam store page kind)
- some electron apps / lighter cross platform engine
- less sucky QML
- i think weechat or sth has own xml bashed app froamework thing (so could be useful to people wanting to build everything app app platform
- much richer markdown format ? |
| |
| ▲ | zero_bias 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s called WML/WAP | | |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think we can do better than a 15x15 text window | | |
| ▲ | exasperaited 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | WML/WAP got a bad rap I think, largely because of the way it was developed and imposed/introduced. But it was not insane, and it represented a clarity of thought that then went missing for decades. Several things that were in WML are quite reminiscent of interactions designed in web components today. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dtj1123 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What about https://geminiprotocol.net/ |
|
| ▲ | augustk 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And also bring back progressive enhancement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement |
|
| ▲ | hinkley 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Years ago I wrote a tiny xhtml-basic browser for a job. It was great. Some of my best work. But then the iPhone came out and xhtml-basic died practically overnight. |
|
| ▲ | afavour 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So you want 2026 to be the year of Google AMP? |
|
| ▲ | 1313ed01 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not likely to happen. There is geminiprotocol with gemtext though for those of us that are fine with that level of simplicity. Work towards an eventual feature freeze and final standardisation of the web would be fantastic though, and a huge benefit to pretty much everyone other than maybe the Chrome developers. |
|
| ▲ | aziis98 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would actually merge html and js in a single language and bring the layout part of css too (something like having grid and flexbox be elements themselves instead of display styles, more typst kind of showed this is possible in a nice way) and keep css only for the styling part. Or maybe just make it all a single lispy language |
|
| ▲ | keepamovin 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do it, man. Call it "MicroWeb" or whatever. Write an agent, make it "viewable with regular browsers". I think this could be cool. |
|
| ▲ | mewse-hn 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can't think of an instance of the web contracting like that. Maybe when Apple decided not to support Adobe Flash. |
| |
| ▲ | bdcravens 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In the earlier days of the web, there were a lot more plugins you'd install to get around on most websites: not just Flash, but things like PDF viewers, Real Video, etc. You'd regularly have to install new codecs, etc. To say nothing of the days when there were some sites you'd have to use a different browser for. A movement towards more of a standards-driven web (in the sense of de facto, not academic, standards) is what made most of this possible. | |
| ▲ | fireflies_ 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Arguably XSLT |
|
|
| ▲ | mromanuk 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would be cool to create a MicroBrowser, just to browser stuff that's compatible. |
| |
|
| ▲ | oefrha 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You mean like the piece of crap that was WAP? |
|
| ▲ | duped 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think there needs to be a split between the web browser as a document renderer and link follower, and the web browser as a portable target for GUI applications. But frankly my biggest gripe is that you need HTML, JS, and CSS. Three distinct languages that are extremely dissimilar in syntax and semantics that you need all three of (or some bastard cross compiler for your JSX to convert from one format to them). Just make a decent scripting language and interface for the browser and you don't need that nonsense. I understand this has been tried before (flash, silverlight, etc). They weren't bad ideas, they were killed because of companies that were threatened by the browser as a standard target for applications. |
| |
| ▲ | foobarchu 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think this is the ideal direction mainly because a lot of the webs current tech problems stem from websites that don't need app-level features using them. I was in web dev at the advent of SPA-style navigation and understand why everyone switched to it, but at the same time I feel like it's the source of many if not most bugs an performance issues that frustrate the average user. | |
| ▲ | alcover 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree. Something componenty like Flash, yes. But it'd be easier to subset what already exists.. |
|
|
| ▲ | speed_spread 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can already create websites to these standards. Then truncate large parts of webkit and create a new browser. Or base it on Servo. |
|
| ▲ | stronglikedan 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean, you can do all that now, so that's not the problem. The problem would be convincing millions of people to switch, when 99.99999% of them couldn't care less. |
| |
| ▲ | vbezhenar 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My idea is to use Markdown over HTTP(S). It's relatively easy to implement Markdown renderer, compared to HTML renderer. It's possible to browse that kind of website with HTML browser with very simple wrapper either on client or server side, so it's backwards compatible. It's rich enough for a lot of websites with actually useful content. Now I know that Markdown generally can include HTML tags, so probably it should be somewhat restricted. It could allow to implement second web in a compatible way with simple browsers. | | |
| ▲ | coryrc 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can just use HTML4 if you want, it's already supported and standardized. Markdown is very much not. | |
| ▲ | sunshine-o 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I believe this is the way we might get out of this mess. With a markdown over HTTP browser I could already almost browse Github through the READMEs and probably other websites. Markdown is really a loved and now quite popular format. It is sad gemini created a separate closed format instead of just adopting it. |
| |
| ▲ | billforsternz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A few too many 9s there I think. You're estimating that only 1 person in every 10 million could care less. So less than 50 such people in the USA for example | |
| ▲ | makapuf 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe you dont need a big enough % to change but a sufficient absolute number, which given internet size might happen with the right 0.00001% | |
| ▲ | alcover 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh they would care if one shows them much snappier versions of services they use. They just don't know better. |
|
|
| ▲ | bArray 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And if you find you need more features than that - just build an app, don't make the web browser into some overly bloated app! |
| |
| ▲ | mikepurvis 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But most "apps" are just webviews running overcomplicated websites in them, many of which are using all the crazy features that the GP post wants to strip out. | |
| ▲ | bogdan 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then you have to deal with os compatibility. That's the main selling point of the Web, it works everywhere. | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Well worth it. Even the very best web apps struggle to be as good as a decent native app, let alone mediocre web apps. The native operating system blows the web out of the water as an app platform. | |
| ▲ | christophilus 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And, I don't have to run a binary to try your product. The web has a lot of flaws, but it's a good way to deliver properly sandboxed applications with low hassle on the part of the user. I've built my fair share of native vs web apps, and I vastly prefer working on web apps. As a user, I vastly prefer web apps for most things. Not all things, but most. No, I don't want to install your crappy app on my computer and risk you doing something irresponsible. I'll keep you sandboxed in a browser tab that I can easily "uninstall" by closing. | | |
| ▲ | zppln 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can't think of a single thing where I prefer a web app over a native alternative, unless it's for one-off use. | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I will pick a web app over a proprietary "native" app every time. That way, it can stay in a sandbox where it belongs. Discord, Zoom, Meet, Trello, YouTube, and various others, all stay in sandboxed browser tabs. | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have several web apps installed over the native alternatives. Discord is the most prominent one; I've found their native app has been getting shittier by the day over recent months, while the web app remains as snappy as any Safari page. Plus I can run an adblocker and other extensions in the web app which improve the experience. | |
| ▲ | wiseowise 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most of the “apps” are 200 MB native monstrosities that could be served by 20 kb of JS. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thwarted 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except when it doesn't because of browser or platform differences/incompatibilities. | | |
| ▲ | ameliaquining 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The portability of the Web is imperfect, but it's not even in the same galaxy as the portability of native app platforms; there's just no comparison. |
|
|
|