> You can even take it a step further and use an older browser that doesn't support the modern features you're complaining about. > HTML3 still works great in

> You can even take it a step further and use an older browser that doesn't support the modern features you're complaining about. > HTML3 still works great in modern browsers, but the people making the sites want to use modern features. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I disagree with words like "modern" and "older". The most "modern" browser that I'm aware of (not counting the myriad Webkit/Gecko skins) is EWW, which was first released in 2013. It's now a built-in feature of Emacs, a reasonably widely used piece of software. I think this fits the parent's desire for a readable hypertext renderer. In contrast, Google Chrome dates from 2008. If we include that in our definition of "modern" then I think we should include Netsurf (first stable release in 2007), which is a full graphical browser but might still be acceptable to the parent. If we call Firefox "modern" then I'd say it includes everything back to Netscape Navigator. If we're instead talking about maintained and up-to-date browsers then w3m, Links and lynx have all had releases in 2019. Again, those are readable hypertext systems like the parent describes. We might consider "modern" to mean implementing certain Web standards; yet that seems precisely against the nature of this discussion. Plus, many of those described above have support for e.g. HTML5, certain ECMAScript standards, etc. In contrast, "older" browsers would presumably include bloat like Internet Explorer's support for ActiveX and VBScript; and the IRC client + WYSIWYG editor + mail reader + news reader from Netscape/Mozilla/SeaMonkey. Precisely against what the parent asked for.