> They have a lot of flaws, but every proposed JS- or wasm-based replacement for them that I've seen has been significantly worse. I'm a fan of Gopher and Wiki

> They have a lot of flaws, but every proposed JS- or wasm-based replacement for them that I've seen has been significantly worse. I'm a fan of Gopher and Wikipedia mobile. http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw.lite http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw.lite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/?mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/?mobileaction=toggle_view_mo... HTML and CSS are not bad. The problem (for me) is the lack of diversity in the layout engines. It can be explained by the complexity of the standards. It's near impossible to create a new browser from scratch (that can display modern websites). BTW people can't choose something else because there is nothing else and every computer has a web brower. It's more a monopoly.