2 ms·

When was having support for JavaScript really ever criteria for being a web browser? Long time ago there was no JavaScript and later it was still possible to b

When was having support for JavaScript really ever criteria for being a web browser? Long time ago there was no JavaScript and later it was still possible to browse Internet with JS disabled. JavaScript is something that clients and content producers wanted, but is only necessary to realistically use web because content producers decide their content should not be accessible without JavaScript running in the browser. I, personally, still use browser to access FTP resources because I only use them read only and because it is convenient to browse them the same way as similar resources but using HTTP.

eesmith 6y ago
JavaScript support isn't a requirement for being a web browser. Never has been. Still isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) Ftp support, beloved as I think it is, was also never a requirement for being called a web browser. Nor gopher, even though some web browsers also supported them. I believe the only requirements for being called a web browser are: 1) support for HTTP (in at least one of its various forms), 2) being able to render HTML (in at least one of its various forms, including XHTML) as something more presentable than raw text, and 3) an interface component letting the user follow at least some hyperlinks. However, I think bastawhiz's argument is a bit dubious. Many people use "internet browser" as a synonym for "web browser", and indeed a DDG search for that phrase just now shows advertisements for Chrome and Opera. I also see that Sony offers an "Internet Browser" for their TVs which is a version of Opera. https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 So had things been just a bit different, we could have been calling these things "internet browsers" instead of "web browsers". (Rather like when places offer "Internet access" only to find all non-http(s) ports are blocked.)

eesmith 6y ago

JavaScript support isn't a requirement for being a web browser. Never has been. Still isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) Ftp support, beloved as I think it is, was also never a requirement for being called a web browser. Nor gopher, even though some web browsers also supported them. I believe the only requirements for being called a web browser are: 1) support for HTTP (in at least one of its various forms), 2) being able to render HTML (in at least one of its various forms, including XHTML) as something more presentable than raw text, and 3) an interface component letting the user follow at least some hyperlinks. However, I think bastawhiz's argument is a bit dubious. Many people use "internet browser" as a synonym for "web browser", and indeed a DDG search for that phrase just now shows advertisements for Chrome and Opera. I also see that Sony offers an "Internet Browser" for their TVs which is a version of Opera. https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 So had things been just a bit different, we could have been calling these things "internet browsers" instead of "web browsers". (Rather like when places offer "Internet access" only to find all non-http(s) ports are blocked.)