Zibon Badi <zibo...@usenet.invalid> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> With my aim to support viewing in the likes of Dillo and Links,
>> this has to be realised be avoiding all Javascript and most CSS.
>> Supporting just Chrome, Firefox, and Safari requires much less
>> sacrifice, and so long as the latter browsers are trying to match
>> the featres of Chrome it may remain so.
>
> That is a noble goal but realistically speaking Dillo catching up to CFS is
> nigh impossible.
True, it's basically a one-man-show and even that one man seems to
be almost MIA for a few years now. Netsurf is another one, which in
theory is closer to the mainstream web feature set, but in practice
it still isn't usable on many websites and their Javascript
implementation seems unable to keep up with the pace of development.
> Modern web standards are infamously bloated and trying to
> catch up is not only unfeasible for less than a multi-billion dollar
> company in terms of resources, it's also a fool's errand as the modern web
> is characterized by "living standards", meaning as soon as you caught up,
> things have already changed such that you have to start all over again.
Yep, though only because most web developers don't bother trying to
keep sites compatible with less full-featured browsers.
> Links is a different story entirely though, as it likely only aims to
> implement HTML and maybe some basic CSS due to it's terminal requirement.
Links actually supports both terminal and graphical modes. The
features page says "HTML 4.0 support (without CSS)", so unlike
Dillo there's no support for CSS at all. The debian package with
graphical mode is called "links2".
http://links.twibright.com/features.php
> Although the CSS standard for example *does* include the media type "grid"
> for such cases, I doubt most web developers have ever heard of it.
> That leads me to assume that down to it's core Links is a type of browser
> not aimed at nor suited for the type of website most people develop, as
> modern web development revolves further and further around interactive,
> JavaScript-heavy web applications rather than traditional editorial
> websites. Additionally CFS has conditioned developers to use all standards
> in unseparable conjunction with each other. If you don't believe me,
> there's no further proof needed than trying to use the web with JavaScript
> entirely disabled for a month. You may even use a CFS browser for that, as
> long as you can turn JS off.
Oh I believe you, I'm always finding blank/useless pages while
trying to browse in Dillo or Links, before resorting to Firefox.
> What this boils down to is that in terms of what browser users will most
> likely see, Google is said website vendor. And they're the vendor of Chrome
> too. It's natural to want to optimize browser and website towards each
> other but the lack to do so for other browsers is what ultimately lead
> Microsoft - a multi billion dollar company with more than enough resources
> to throw at the problem - to kill off EdgeHTML so they wouldn't have to
> clean up after Google's mess all the time. It's death by a thousand papercuts.
Yet for now web developers are still paying attention to Firefox
and Safari, even if it's just me who cares about the likes of Dillo
and Links (Wikipedia still works alright in them though). I don't
believe the thrust of that article which suggests Google are
willfully holding their browser's features back so that the others
can catch up. They know that if they move too far away from the
others, web developers who insist on maintaining compatibility with
FF and Safari will just ignore those new features until the others
catch up anyway.
It's true, as much as I fear it, that one day FF and Safari might
be cast aside entirely by professional web developers in the same
way as Dillo and Links. Given the current usage share of FF I think
it's done well so far in that respect, even though some developers
do already ignore it. I just disagree that Chrome's developers can
sway that entirely on their own. Google itself might though, by
making their own websites work less well in other browsers. Then
once remaining FF users switch browsers so that eg. YouTube works
better, developers of other websites follow.