4 ms·
Hmm I think you're right wrt commodity markets and lack of incentives for innovation. What I meant was that if the specs for the "web stack" would set any kind
by tannhaeuser 4y ago
Hmm I think you're right wrt commodity markets and lack of incentives for innovation. What I meant was that if the specs for the "web stack" would set any kind of reasonable target for implementation, then we could've seen new browser projects, especially F/OSS user and privacy-focussed ones; but they don't, making them mere instruments for pulling up the ladder. Despite of this, folks cheer at eg bits of inessential yet complex CSS additions and bloating JavaScript the language with inessential features.
- adolph 4y agoWhat is the scope of what you call the "web stack?" Is DNS, TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a standard/target already? I think the challenge for F/OSS user and privacy-focussed browsers is an environment where a living can't be made with it through licensing/subscriptions. Pureblood Gnu is fine for folks with academic sinecures, but without cash, the bazaar is bare. Brave is making an effort as is the Neeva search engine, probably others too. https://neeva.com/index https://neeva.com/index
- tannhaeuser 4y ago> Is DNS, TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a standard/target already? It is, but as long as we allow a single party to grossly bloat HTML, http and DNS (ie DoH, http/3) plus driving CSS ad absurdum over the course of 25 years, not to speak of JS APIs, there's not even a theoretical chance of new browsers emerging, since by the time those efforts can be completed, they're obsolete. And Mozilla is complicit in this, yet want to lecture us about the open web and stuff.