> But these questions point to one of major defects of the "cut-down Web" vision: lots of people have a limited set of Web features that they like, but they tend not to agree on what that set is.
Democracy to the rescue:
1. Start a FLOSS mailing list thread to get as much input as possible on the best starting point for this reduced set of functionality. Gopher, resurrecting Xanadu, revisiting Hypercard, and so on. Let the conversation flow.
2. Invite the people who chose Firefox Reader View to private gitlab instance and get to work.
Re:WebUSB is dead
by anderspitman on Monday February 03, 2020 @07:03PM
(#22230821)
I think getting rid of editability would be great. The whole point is a minimal browser. I don't really want to cut down the web. I want to start from scratch but in a manner compatible with our current JavaScript VMs.
Re:WebUSB is dead
by imtringued on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @06:49AM
(#22234533)
I agree but a lot of the pre-flexbox stuff in CSS is just plain crap. However, I don't think removing obsolete CSS constructs will make anything faster or better because you're not forced to use them.
Are you getting rid of Web forms now? Also, remember that at the very beginning Berners-Lee's WorldWideWeb browser supported HTML editing, so it's definitely part of some vision of the "good old days".
Yes, if you cut down or eliminate CSS, or just redesign it, you could build a faster renderer.
But these questions point to one of major defects of the "cut-down Web" vision: lots of people have a limited set of Web features that they like, but they tend not to agree on what that set is. You like flexbox. Some people really like grid. Some people really need ruby, or floats, or columns, or editing, or vertical breaking (pagination). Pretty soon you've got something nearly as complicated as real CSS.