2 ms·

First of all, looks awesome! Second: I'd love to be able to see it access Wikipedia! (Wikipedia should be a fairly "low-hanging fruit" in terms of functionali

First of all, looks awesome! Second: I'd love to be able to see it access Wikipedia! (Wikipedia should be a fairly "low-hanging fruit" in terms of functionality that must be implemented to achieve compatibility -- if I were writing a web browser, I'd always start with Wikipedia compatibility first, then once that has been obtained, move on to more challenging, technologically complex sites... But that being said, Wikipedia is probably a bit more complex these days than when it was first implemented... still, it would be a great "win" to be able to browse Wikipedia with it!) Anyway, wishing you great luck with your browser!

cxr 3y ago
Good point. 1. Wikipedia changes so rarely that it's almost considered a short of a misfeature, so it's hardly a moving target the way that other stuff would be 2. Even despite the breadth of subject matter, most pages are fairly similar, and the more exotic stuff will be used infrequently via templates and confined to supplementary items like infoboxes 3. Your bang-for-buck once you have a passable implementation will be enormous (not to mention: doesn't outright contribute to the decay of society), in contrast to e.g. a social networking site where a quarter of the world uses it and 3/4 either revile it or are indifferent to it when stacked up against their preferred platform One thing to be considered is that the general look of unstyled pages that is common to almost all browsers isn't actually prescribed by any spec—browsers are free to come up with their own UA style sheets—so anyone developing a new browser should just make unstyled content look by default like what it would look like under reader mode. Pretty crazy that mainstream browsers haven't changed the way unstyled content is presented.

2 ms·

First of all, looks awesome! Second: I'd love to be able to see it access Wikipedia! (Wikipedia should be a fairly "low-hanging fruit" in terms of functionali

by peter_d_sherman 3y ago

cxr 3y ago
Good point. 1. Wikipedia changes so rarely that it's almost considered a short of a misfeature, so it's hardly a moving target the way that other stuff would be 2. Even despite the breadth of subject matter, most pages are fairly similar, and the more exotic stuff will be used infrequently via templates and confined to supplementary items like infoboxes 3. Your bang-for-buck once you have a passable implementation will be enormous (not to mention: doesn't outright contribute to the decay of society), in contrast to e.g. a social networking site where a quarter of the world uses it and 3/4 either revile it or are indifferent to it when stacked up against their preferred platform One thing to be considered is that the general look of unstyled pages that is common to almost all browsers isn't actually prescribed by any spec—browsers are free to come up with their own UA style sheets—so anyone developing a new browser should just make unstyled content look by default like what it would look like under reader mode. Pretty crazy that mainstream browsers haven't changed the way unstyled content is presented.