6 ms·

> The problem with targeting a subset is there's a ratchet effect with web APIs What about starting a new web then only for the supported subset? Based on my

> The problem with targeting a subset is there's a ratchet effect with web APIs What about starting a new web then only for the supported subset? Based on my current browsing experience, this may be a plus in the long run.

peremptor 2y ago
There are now 3 competing standards.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  You really just need two to see the positive effects, but three would be fantastic.
gus_massa 2y ago
The problem is convining anyone to write a website in this. You will have like 3 sites that use only the subset. The closest example is AMP, but you must be Google to force people to use it.
- starbugs 2y ago
  > The problem is convining anyone to write a website in this Could choose a subset that lets certain sites that do not get on everybody's nerves still run fine. For the remainder, people who need it can run an extension that runs a Chromium converting what's possible to the target subset.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Do you want to support YouTube? You want to support YouTube, don't you? Any big FAANG site probably uses most of the possible features.
    - starbugs 2y ago
      > You want to support YouTube, don't you? Of course no. You can use a bloated browser for that.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Then nobody will ever use your browser. Simple as that.
        8organicbits 2y ago
        I think people forget the early 2000s. Many sites only worked on IE but Firefox was the better browser. Firefox users had an extension that would open certain links in IE or open the current page in IE via the context menu. If a lightweight browser could be significantly faster and more secure, people would tolerate using two browsers again. Although Ladybird hasn't reached that bar. YouTube certainly could use a small set of web standards, although YT regularly breaks on Firefox. It's a video player with links and forms.
        ranger_danger 2y ago
        > YT regularly breaks on Firefox Source? I've never had a single problem ever, and I don't know anyone else that has either.
        8organicbits 2y ago
        Sure, here's a couple mentions from just the last ten days. Loads more if you search around. https://mapstodon.space/@hareldan/112619447620823614 https://mapstodon.space/@hareldan/112619447620823614 https://techhub.social/@weston/112607264644039009 https://techhub.social/@weston/112607264644039009 https://pdx.social/@crowdotblack/112604055589800602 https://pdx.social/@crowdotblack/112604055589800602 https://social.bitwig.community/@gerotakke/112631068990105521 https://social.bitwig.community/@gerotakke/11263106899010552...
- galangalalgol 2y ago
  A surprising number of websites work fine without js.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    Basically none of the ones I use look or work normal without it.
  - niutech 2y ago
    Websites with text content maybe, but the web is full of webapps which require JS.
trigonated 2y ago
This is more or less the idea behind projects like the Gemini protocol [1]. It's even deliberately designed to not be easily extensible, as to avoid the temptation of adding features. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)
skriticos2 2y ago
There is a reason that Esperanto or one of it's siblings is not the language of global understanding and we are discussing in English. The world at large generally does not care about these kinds of fancy. It's half a miracle that we agreed to whatever the Chromium engine implements to be a baseline that most folks build stuff on.

peremptor 2y ago

There are now 3 competing standards.

darby_nine 2y ago
You really just need two to see the positive effects, but three would be fantastic.

gus_massa 2y ago

The problem is convining anyone to write a website in this. You will have like 3 sites that use only the subset. The closest example is AMP, but you must be Google to force people to use it.

starbugs 2y ago
> The problem is convining anyone to write a website in this Could choose a subset that lets certain sites that do not get on everybody's nerves still run fine. For the remainder, people who need it can run an extension that runs a Chromium converting what's possible to the target subset.
- immibis 2y ago
  Do you want to support YouTube? You want to support YouTube, don't you? Any big FAANG site probably uses most of the possible features.
  - starbugs 2y ago
    > You want to support YouTube, don't you? Of course no. You can use a bloated browser for that.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Then nobody will ever use your browser. Simple as that.
      - 8organicbits 2y ago
        I think people forget the early 2000s. Many sites only worked on IE but Firefox was the better browser. Firefox users had an extension that would open certain links in IE or open the current page in IE via the context menu. If a lightweight browser could be significantly faster and more secure, people would tolerate using two browsers again. Although Ladybird hasn't reached that bar. YouTube certainly could use a small set of web standards, although YT regularly breaks on Firefox. It's a video player with links and forms.
        ranger_danger 2y ago
        > YT regularly breaks on Firefox Source? I've never had a single problem ever, and I don't know anyone else that has either.
        8organicbits 2y ago
        Sure, here's a couple mentions from just the last ten days. Loads more if you search around. https://mapstodon.space/@hareldan/112619447620823614 https://mapstodon.space/@hareldan/112619447620823614 https://techhub.social/@weston/112607264644039009 https://techhub.social/@weston/112607264644039009 https://pdx.social/@crowdotblack/112604055589800602 https://pdx.social/@crowdotblack/112604055589800602 https://social.bitwig.community/@gerotakke/112631068990105521 https://social.bitwig.community/@gerotakke/11263106899010552...
galangalalgol 2y ago
A surprising number of websites work fine without js.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  Basically none of the ones I use look or work normal without it.
- niutech 2y ago
  Websites with text content maybe, but the web is full of webapps which require JS.

trigonated 2y ago

This is more or less the idea behind projects like the Gemini protocol [1]. It's even deliberately designed to not be easily extensible, as to avoid the temptation of adding features. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)

skriticos2 2y ago

There is a reason that Esperanto or one of it's siblings is not the language of global understanding and we are discussing in English. The world at large generally does not care about these kinds of fancy. It's half a miracle that we agreed to whatever the Chromium engine implements to be a baseline that most folks build stuff on.