5 ms·

i find myself requesting this whenever i see a new minimalist browser pop up: it would be great to standardize alternative browsers on a consistent subset of w

i find myself requesting this whenever i see a new minimalist browser pop up: it would be great to standardize alternative browsers on a consistent subset of web standards and document them so that "smolweb" enthusiasts can target that when building their websites and alternative browsers makers can target something useful without boiling the ocean i personally prefer this approach to brand new protocols like Gemini, because it retains backward compatibility with popular browsers while offering an off ramp.

pkphilip 1y ago
I am all for this. A completely simplified version of HTML without all the quirks and edge cases which have been added in over years + Javascript.
graypegg 1y ago
I think that would be really neat for small scale web publishing, but making it a subset of browser standards could be a really difficult sell to the people making browsers. While it's easier to build a browser to a subset of such a massive set of specs, the subset will drift towards a "similar but slightly incompatible standard" pretty soon after it's decided on. Following the development of Ladybird has given me an appreciation for just how often the "spec" for the web changes. (in small ways, daily.) That locks new browser implementations into a diverging standards track that would be very difficult to get off of. I think something like a reference implementation (Ladybird, Servo or even Vaev maybe?) getting picked up as the small-web living standard feels like the best bet for me since that still lets browser projects get the big-time funding for making the big-web work in their browser too. "It's got to look good in Ladybird/Vaev/etc". An idea: a web authoring tool built around libweb from Ladybird! (Or any other new web implementation that's easily embeddable) The implied standard-ness of whatever goes in that slot would just come for free. (Given enough people are using it!)
- userbinator 1y ago
  small-web living standard The phrase "living standard" is an oxymoron, invented by the incumbents who want to pretend they're supporting standards while weaponising constant change to keep themselves incumbent.
- shiomiru 1y ago
  > I think something like a reference implementation (Ladybird, Servo or even Vaev maybe?) getting picked up as the small-web living standard feels like the best bet for me since that still lets browser projects get the big-time funding for making the big-web work in their browser too. A "standard" should mean there is a clear goal to work towards to for authors and browser vendors. For example, if a browser implements CSS 2.1 (the last sanely defined CSS version), its vendor can say "we support CSS 2.1", authors who care enough can check their CSS using a validator, and users can report if a CSS 2.1 feature is implemented incorrectly. With a living standard (e.g. HTML5), all you get is a closed circle of implementations which must add a feature before it is specified. Restricting the number of implementations to one and omitting the descriptive prose sounds even worse than the status quo.
userbinator 1y ago
The subset could just be an older version of the spec, e.g. HTML 4.01 and CSS 2.1. (My opinion as another one who has been slowly working on my own browser engine.)
- stevage 1y ago
  But older versions contain lots of crap we don't need (eg <blink> tags) and miss out on useful stuff (grid layout).
- ghayes 1y ago
  I feel like some of the newer standards like CSS Grid instead of tables might be the best way to go. Many HTML/CSS improvements were not just bloat but actually better standards to build on.
  - edoceo 1y ago
    Right! Crazy fonts or cursors, not on smolweb (as another use put it) but Flex and Grid are almost necessary. There are loads of things that could be dropped (it feels like). I just want one of these browsers to give me a proper ComboBox (text, search and drop-down thing)
  - userbinator 1y ago
    You still need to have tables.
    - dmd 1y ago
      And <marquee>, of course.
    - WorldMaker 1y ago
      But the rendering engine might be easier to build with TABLE as a specialization of CSS Grid layout rendering rather than the slow real world work of CSS Grid being a generalization of TABLE rendering.
  - shakna 1y ago
enos_feedler 1y ago
You mean AMP without the BS
idle_zealot 1y ago
> standardize alternative browsers on a consistent subset of web standards and document them so that "smolweb" enthusiasts can target that Could such a standard be based on the subset of HTML/CSS acceptable in emails? Maybe with a few extra things for interactivity.
- 43920 1y ago
  AFAIK, "email HTML" isn't standardized either; most organizations that make nice-looking HTML emails have to do a ton of testing across different clients and come up with workarounds to make everything look consistent.
  - notpushkin 1y ago
    Could we standardize email HTML?
    - OptionX 1y ago
      You could write a standard. If it actually gets mainstream adoption or goes into the standards pile it another question entirely.
    - jeroenhd 1y ago
      If you can convince Apple, Google, and Microsoft to implement your standard: sure. Attempts have been made with varying success. Your standard still needs to render in Outlook on Windows, though, which means you need to support the weird Office version of IE11 as an upper limit.
      - notpushkin 1y ago
        Does the email client on Windows still use IE11? (Some older versions might still have significant market share, but I’m not sure it would be for much longer?)
        WorldMaker 1y ago
codedokode 1y ago
In this case it is better to make a new standard because HTML/CSS have so many legacy things and quirks that better be got rid of (like <hr> tag for example, table cell not inheriting font size etc).
- brettermeier 1y ago
  What you have against <hr>?
ksec 1y ago
I wish for the same as well and have been asking for it for so long. Or a new Standard that could compile to a consistent subset of web standard with test spec available.

pkphilip 1y ago

I am all for this. A completely simplified version of HTML without all the quirks and edge cases which have been added in over years + Javascript.

graypegg 1y ago

I think that would be really neat for small scale web publishing, but making it a subset of browser standards could be a really difficult sell to the people making browsers. While it's easier to build a browser to a subset of such a massive set of specs, the subset will drift towards a "similar but slightly incompatible standard" pretty soon after it's decided on. Following the development of Ladybird has given me an appreciation for just how often the "spec" for the web changes. (in small ways, daily.) That locks new browser implementations into a diverging standards track that would be very difficult to get off of. I think something like a reference implementation (Ladybird, Servo or even Vaev maybe?) getting picked up as the small-web living standard feels like the best bet for me since that still lets browser projects get the big-time funding for making the big-web work in their browser too. "It's got to look good in Ladybird/Vaev/etc". An idea: a web authoring tool built around libweb from Ladybird! (Or any other new web implementation that's easily embeddable) The implied standard-ness of whatever goes in that slot would just come for free. (Given enough people are using it!)

userbinator 1y ago
small-web living standard The phrase "living standard" is an oxymoron, invented by the incumbents who want to pretend they're supporting standards while weaponising constant change to keep themselves incumbent.
shiomiru 1y ago
> I think something like a reference implementation (Ladybird, Servo or even Vaev maybe?) getting picked up as the small-web living standard feels like the best bet for me since that still lets browser projects get the big-time funding for making the big-web work in their browser too. A "standard" should mean there is a clear goal to work towards to for authors and browser vendors. For example, if a browser implements CSS 2.1 (the last sanely defined CSS version), its vendor can say "we support CSS 2.1", authors who care enough can check their CSS using a validator, and users can report if a CSS 2.1 feature is implemented incorrectly. With a living standard (e.g. HTML5), all you get is a closed circle of implementations which must add a feature before it is specified. Restricting the number of implementations to one and omitting the descriptive prose sounds even worse than the status quo.

userbinator 1y ago

The subset could just be an older version of the spec, e.g. HTML 4.01 and CSS 2.1. (My opinion as another one who has been slowly working on my own browser engine.)

stevage 1y ago
But older versions contain lots of crap we don't need (eg <blink> tags) and miss out on useful stuff (grid layout).
ghayes 1y ago
I feel like some of the newer standards like CSS Grid instead of tables might be the best way to go. Many HTML/CSS improvements were not just bloat but actually better standards to build on.
- edoceo 1y ago
  Right! Crazy fonts or cursors, not on smolweb (as another use put it) but Flex and Grid are almost necessary. There are loads of things that could be dropped (it feels like). I just want one of these browsers to give me a proper ComboBox (text, search and drop-down thing)
- userbinator 1y ago
  You still need to have tables.
  - dmd 1y ago
    And <marquee>, of course.
  - WorldMaker 1y ago
    But the rendering engine might be easier to build with TABLE as a specialization of CSS Grid layout rendering rather than the slow real world work of CSS Grid being a generalization of TABLE rendering.
- shakna 1y ago

enos_feedler 1y ago

You mean AMP without the BS

idle_zealot 1y ago

> standardize alternative browsers on a consistent subset of web standards and document them so that "smolweb" enthusiasts can target that Could such a standard be based on the subset of HTML/CSS acceptable in emails? Maybe with a few extra things for interactivity.

43920 1y ago
AFAIK, "email HTML" isn't standardized either; most organizations that make nice-looking HTML emails have to do a ton of testing across different clients and come up with workarounds to make everything look consistent.
- notpushkin 1y ago
  Could we standardize email HTML?
  - OptionX 1y ago
    You could write a standard. If it actually gets mainstream adoption or goes into the standards pile it another question entirely.
  - jeroenhd 1y ago
    If you can convince Apple, Google, and Microsoft to implement your standard: sure. Attempts have been made with varying success. Your standard still needs to render in Outlook on Windows, though, which means you need to support the weird Office version of IE11 as an upper limit.
    - notpushkin 1y ago
      Does the email client on Windows still use IE11? (Some older versions might still have significant market share, but I’m not sure it would be for much longer?)
      - WorldMaker 1y ago

codedokode 1y ago

In this case it is better to make a new standard because HTML/CSS have so many legacy things and quirks that better be got rid of (like <hr> tag for example, table cell not inheriting font size etc).

brettermeier 1y ago
What you have against <hr>?

ksec 1y ago

I wish for the same as well and have been asking for it for so long. Or a new Standard that could compile to a consistent subset of web standard with test spec available.