So web browsers are bad, right?
And web browsers being bad is making the internet bad, right?
Or maybe the internet being bad is making web browser bad.
The upshot is that we should stop using bad web browsers recreationally, and stop using services that can only be accessed from bad web browsers.
And when that isn't possible, build alternatives that work from not bad browsers.
That's why I'm so happy that Brutaldon exists.
So, what are the core features a good web browser should have?
What shouldn't it have?
@ajroach42 I guess the question is, how would you *split up* the web, so that applications that really do need the abused functionality went off into their own space (perhaps with its own protocol), while the pieces we like would stay in their own space in which annoyances are relatively difficult to implement.
@freakazoid Right. I'm not suggesting that we try to replace the web entirely. It is very useful, as much as it is a giant problem.
I'm wondering aloud what the core functionality of a modern document delivery platform should look like.
A thing that does what the web was supposed to do, rather than what the web does.
With regard to formatting -- well, a subset of html might do, but maybe markdown would be better. Give the user complete control over fonts, sizes, and colors. Eliminate scripting entirely.
@enkiv2 Markdown is what I've been considering.
Server side code I'm okay with, but no client side.
the browser is an application environment and it doesn't have to be a bad one. when we visit URLs that serve JS we are downloading software; it should be permissioned and constrained, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with downloading software or executing it on your machine. major browsers over-privilege JS apps in order to favor surveillance and ads.
- The web that exists should stay, and we should work to improve it. I am not trying to replace it, but augment it.
- A subset of the web that exists + other stuff that exists outside the web should be made available through a protocol/in a format that resists the problems with the web that exists, while also limiting it's functionality.
@ajroach42 @aeonofdiscord @enkiv2 @chuck yes, SSB and its ilk are really fascinating but are still dealing with critical standards and implementation issues (no deletes, etc). beaker and the dat ecosystem are muddling through tooling hell (hashbase, etc). all the pieces of a better web are coming together, and they improve with time
That's exactly my line of thinking.
Even things that seem like they need networking don't necessarily. For instance, a social network 'app' could be offline-first (like ssb is) -- a daemon syncs posts periodically, and the 'app' just renders & allows you to drop hints for things the daemon should post next time it syncs.
A social network for the 19A0s.