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.
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.
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.