5 ms·

I think browsers should render any content type in a way that provides functionality for a user; for example, I think it would be great if when loading a JSON f

I think browsers should render any content type in a way that provides functionality for a user; for example, I think it would be great if when loading a JSON file, I could toggle between the raw data provided and a pretty-printed, syntax-highlighted, collapsable tree view of the JSON file. I think it would be great if when loading an MD file, I could toggle between the raw markdown and a rendered version. Certainly when I load an image or audio file outside a webpage, my browser decodes renders the content usefully. Given these cases, why would XML files be any different?

fireattack 8y ago
JSON parser is indeed a very nice feature of Firefox I wish Chrome could come up with something similar.
- apetresc 8y ago
  There's a ton of extensions that do exactly that.
  - RaleyField 8y ago
    And I don't need the hassle to figure out who stands behind them and if I can trust them. Most of the time there isn't any good reason to trust them anyway.
  - fireattack 8y ago
    Oh thanks! I don't even know that's possible with extensions. Just installed one, works like a charm :D
htor 8y ago
yes to all this, but then when do you stop? how many file types should be supported by a browser? i'm sure some people would like it that the browser could edit spreadsheets too. there are so many different use cases.
- eletious 8y ago
  Agreed. At a certain point you find that you've made more than a browser, you've made a full OS
  - adw 8y ago
    If you have a security model and a virtual machine, you already have, haven't you? Browsers are in a meaningful way already operating systems. (This is not an original thought).
- internet_user 8y ago
  You are right, why stop at XML?! We should totally stop displaying JSON in browsers also!
- notafraudster 8y ago
  I would start with the guiding principle that read-only decoding is more important than annotation or editing; non-patent encumbered formats should be the first priority (and in Firefox, perhaps the only formats supported); and formats that exist and are in use currently are more important than historical document formats. I don't think this is egregiously bad mission creep for a browser.
- redwall_hp 8y ago
  I agree. JPEGs, PNGs and other image formats aren't core to what a web browser is supposed to do (and certainly not scripts), and certainly weren't in the original ones. Let's get rid of that cruft!
- krapp 8y ago
  >i'm sure some people would like it that the browser could edit spreadsheets too. there are so many different use cases. Why not? Why shouldn't browsers display at least the most common image, document and media types (including spreadsheets?) Why only display a few content-types but download all others? Content is the point of the web, after all.
LTom 8y ago
Yeah, I usually preview a feed in Firefox before adding it to a proper RSS reader.
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  It's also been great for one-off grabbing of a resource from an RSS feed when you don't want to subscribe -- nor use the embedded players sites have been increasingly pointing users towards on their web pages.
untog 8y ago
I disagree. Viewing a pretty printed JSON file is not something 98% of web browser users want to do, building in functionality for it just adds complexity. Pretty-printing JSON is much better handled by an extension, as is the case in Chrome.
- nialv7 8y ago
  By that logic no browser should include the developer tools either.
  - untog 8y ago
    If the extension APIs allowed it I'd agree with that, but developer tools need much deeper access than extensions provide.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Right, but a web browser wants all sites to look good on them (which IS their main purpose), and including developer tools integrated into the product really helps web site developers make that happen. RSS isn't used by people to make the main product of a browser better.
andreareina 8y ago
Firefox (at least the Developer Edition) renders JSON like that (no syntax highlighting though).
stock_toaster 8y ago
I wouldn't mind if firefox rendered text/markdown.

fireattack 8y ago

JSON parser is indeed a very nice feature of Firefox I wish Chrome could come up with something similar.

apetresc 8y ago
There's a ton of extensions that do exactly that.
- RaleyField 8y ago
  And I don't need the hassle to figure out who stands behind them and if I can trust them. Most of the time there isn't any good reason to trust them anyway.
- fireattack 8y ago
  Oh thanks! I don't even know that's possible with extensions. Just installed one, works like a charm :D

htor 8y ago

yes to all this, but then when do you stop? how many file types should be supported by a browser? i'm sure some people would like it that the browser could edit spreadsheets too. there are so many different use cases.

eletious 8y ago
Agreed. At a certain point you find that you've made more than a browser, you've made a full OS
- adw 8y ago
  If you have a security model and a virtual machine, you already have, haven't you? Browsers are in a meaningful way already operating systems. (This is not an original thought).
internet_user 8y ago
You are right, why stop at XML?! We should totally stop displaying JSON in browsers also!
notafraudster 8y ago
I would start with the guiding principle that read-only decoding is more important than annotation or editing; non-patent encumbered formats should be the first priority (and in Firefox, perhaps the only formats supported); and formats that exist and are in use currently are more important than historical document formats. I don't think this is egregiously bad mission creep for a browser.
redwall_hp 8y ago
I agree. JPEGs, PNGs and other image formats aren't core to what a web browser is supposed to do (and certainly not scripts), and certainly weren't in the original ones. Let's get rid of that cruft!
krapp 8y ago
>i'm sure some people would like it that the browser could edit spreadsheets too. there are so many different use cases. Why not? Why shouldn't browsers display at least the most common image, document and media types (including spreadsheets?) Why only display a few content-types but download all others? Content is the point of the web, after all.

LTom 8y ago

Yeah, I usually preview a feed in Firefox before adding it to a proper RSS reader.

pasbesoin 8y ago
It's also been great for one-off grabbing of a resource from an RSS feed when you don't want to subscribe -- nor use the embedded players sites have been increasingly pointing users towards on their web pages.

untog 8y ago

I disagree. Viewing a pretty printed JSON file is not something 98% of web browser users want to do, building in functionality for it just adds complexity. Pretty-printing JSON is much better handled by an extension, as is the case in Chrome.

nialv7 8y ago
By that logic no browser should include the developer tools either.
- untog 8y ago
  If the extension APIs allowed it I'd agree with that, but developer tools need much deeper access than extensions provide.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Right, but a web browser wants all sites to look good on them (which IS their main purpose), and including developer tools integrated into the product really helps web site developers make that happen. RSS isn't used by people to make the main product of a browser better.

andreareina 8y ago

Firefox (at least the Developer Edition) renders JSON like that (no syntax highlighting though).

stock_toaster 8y ago

I wouldn't mind if firefox rendered text/markdown.