But why?

I recently ran Netscape 4 for the giggles and +90% of the web no longer functions as I could not load the pages due to the protocols no longer being supported.

You may be testing against JS features but in reality those browsers cannot function on the open internet as their protocol and security stacks aren't supported.

A simple check of caniuse.com is sufficient, but if you're worried here's which browsers are in use https://caniuse.com/usage-table . Netscape no longer even registers.

Because I can.

Because I like them.

Because I believe in Any Browser.

Because of retro-computing.

Because with every known scenario I cover, several more unanticipated ones are also covered.

Also, yes, I can imagine being limited to a particular older version of a browser, NN 2.0 included.

Because it's fun as heck.

Because I'm fucking tired of browser monoculture and I want the Web to be compatible again. If I, one determined developer, can make it work in Mosaic, IE3, Netscape, Opera 3 and 12, Lynx, Links, Dillo, Netsurf, w3m, PaleMoon, Waterfox, Google Translate, and yeah, with some grinding, Chrome, with and without JS, hopefully some devs out there feel embarrassed for their code and try a little harder...

Why would anyone ever be embarrassed that their code from 2021 is not working on IE3 or Netscape?

Well, maybe not IE3, but I think it is embarrassing to deny access to, e.g. a five-year-old device with no upgrade path.

Many devs are out of touch with the world where people can't afford a new one.

I don't buy the security argument either, it's often just information access which is limited.

why would a watchmaker be embarrassed for not polishing the inside of a case that only the watchmaker can see?

It is false analogy.

Its not really. This person obviously takes great pride in making their websites uber compatible.

It takes great skill and effort to do this. Sure its a little batshit, but I applaud the level of perseverance that goes into it. I might have a different view if I was trying to ship something to a specific market segment in a hurry. However I'm not, and it pleases me immensely to see people do such silly[1] (and I mean this with the greatest of respect) things.

[1] For reference, adding chamfers and geneva stripes under things like the main barrel, is utterly silly. However, should I be paying >£50k for a watch, I full expect that _every_ inch of that watch is going to be a masterpiece of finishing (reference: https://www.crownwatchblog.com/how-it-works/finishing-school...)

Can you explain what is false about it?

Because the standards you’re building against are arbitrary and just made up by other people. I can make a browser that crashes when it encounters a <div> tag. It’s a shitty browser. Will you feel bad when your stuff won’t work on it?

You're describing something purposely made non-functional, while I am building against software widely distributed and still occasionally encountered in the real world, hardly arbitrary.

Do you test for compatibility with the Wii and Nintendo DS browsers?

I have not yet, but I would like to. If you can help, I would appreciate it.

Due to the wide variety of scenarios and configurations I already have tested with, I think it would be more likely than not that I'd be able to complete my base features test script with few issues.

Your question is a perfect example of why I go so far with testing.

Talking console browsers:

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...

> A few years ago I was doing policy research in a housing benefits office in London

> ...a young woman sits on a hard plastic chair ...Clutched in her hands is a games console – a PlayStation Portable.

> ...She’s connected to the complementary WiFi and is browsing the GOV.UK pages on Housing Benefit

> The PSP’s web browser is – charitably – pathetic. It is slow, frequently runs out of memory, and can only open 3 tabs at a time.

> But the GOV.UK pages are written in simple HTML. They are designed to be lightweight and will work even on rubbish browsers. They have to. This is for everyone.

> The PSP’s web browser is – charitably – pathetic. It is slow, frequently runs out of memory, and can only open 3 tabs at a time.

I'm 99% certain that the latter part of that is false. Personally the PSP's browser was about on par with, eh, IE7 or so, the last time I used it (circa 2013).

I love me some IE7, but that also sounds about right for IE7 performance on the average crappy website.

Well... yeah, it wasn't very good. I realize now "latter part" wasn't clear - I meant just the bit about 3 tabs.

But heck... it even had Flash.

Ok. I tried to make fun of you but you’re still friendly so I’m curious.

Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers? Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections? And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way?

Here's a summary of my journey: I started out just writing clean and simple HTML with NoJS support. I wanted to be usable over a slow connection and for Tor users. I had a few older browsers I liked which I also wanted to support. Also, text-mode like Lynx, for the hackers.

I happened upon a great digital art exhibit at the MFA in Boston, and one of the rooms had several beige boxes with Windows 95 and Netscape 3.04Gold set up to exhibit older Web art in a time-accurate setting.

It was then that I realized how much I liked that particular browser, how much I enjoyed using it, and also how capable it was. So I tried to adjust for it, and by then I had tested under so many others, it wasn't even much work. After that came others, like Mosaic and OffByOne and even more obscure stuff, barely a blip on the radar in its day. It became a fun hobby, and something to be proud of.

A couple years ago, NYC had useful Web access kiosks which were than locked up over public outrage about outdoors people using them for porn. However, they allowed Google Translate, and I was able to both read and post to my site via that.

I had not foreseen the use case, but because I had tested for so many others, it worked. All around, I refer to this as the bending over backwards development model. Like the city bus, I work hard to accomodate everyone, and don't turn anyone away if I can help it. Except spammers, fuck them.

Thank you!

>Do you mind if I ask what kind of stuff you’re maintaining where you see any traffic from these old browsers?

I'm maintaining mostly text-based resources, some of them about technology and interesting to nerds and retro enthusiasts, otheres just general purpose, which I want to make accessible to as many as possible.

For example, when I conducted my first user studies with actual users of screen readers, NO ISSUES were encountered, even though I had not yet made any special adjustments for them.

>Do you think it would ever be possible to transpile a site into some shared common set of syntax/features/whatever instead of making browser specific corrections?

Yes, absolutely. JavaScript makes it very easy by being able to feature-check most things. Also, NoJS is something I already start out with, so it's not difficult to just skip past things like createElement if not supported.

Three biggest challenges I've encountered is no > character (Mosaic treats it as end of HTML comment), no ===, and no anonymous functions.

>And what do you think about features like WebGL which are impossible to replicate on older browsers in a performant way?

I haven't done WebGL, but one feature I have which requires relatively modern JS (think Presto and IE9) is in a separate feature-checked module, older browsers not currently supported.

Again, my goal is for basic feature support, in some cases requiring a skilled operator. For example, this particular feature (client-side cryptographic signatures) can be replicated with an external application.

You need not look far for a great example of progressive enhancement and the benefits it brings. HN has a couple of JS-only niceties, without which the site is still perfectly usable.

Best answer I've seen :)

>I recently ran Netscape 4 for the giggles and +90% of the web no longer functions as I could not load the pages due to the protocols no longer being supported.

Netscape 4 - some minor version - had a bug where if you had a paragraph inside of a list item inside of a div inside of a div it crashed the browser. (I may be misremembering the bug but it was something ridiculous like this)

it was hard to debug for markup that was generated via XSL-T.

So anyway even if the protocols still worked, I don't think you can really expect it to work too much.

I didn't say I use them as a daily driver. I expect to be able to use all the base features.

Netscape 4 is one of my all-time favorite browsers. I stuck with it for many years, because it was blazing fast on my older hardware, and cached well, unlike IE.

Like you, I sometimes take it out for a spin "for the giggles". It's comforting and it works well with my own sites.

I don't worry much about mitm for my purposes, and HTTP still works great, a testament to its design.

I don't get it. Are we going to use 20 year old computers in the future? Is Netscape 2.0 the only browser we will only have?

Even if we want to support 100% of users and don't think about economics I really doubt there's going to be someone with Netscape 2.0 visiting your website nowadays.

With Moore's law, you'd have 2^10 more computing power after 20 years. So you would definitely not have used a computer from 1985 in 2005.

However nowadays, I imagine we're getting maybe 2^3 every 20 years, by the way things are looking. And the baseline is much more capable.

So I wouldn't be too shocked if a desktop from 2021 is still usable in 2041. I was occasionally using a desktop from 2009 until 2019, and it was ok for web browsing, movie watching, editing some documents, etc.

> Are we going to use 20 year old computers in the future?

I hope so. If it weren't for the ever-increasing bloat, on both webpages and webpage-as-an-app's, it wouldn't be a problem. What can you do today with your computer that you couldn't have done 20 years ago? ("Looks better" doesn't count)

Well, I use it, so your doubt is obviously disproven.

The future is unknown, but I want to be as ready as I can be.

See my other comment for more thoughts.

>Well, I use it, so your doubt is obviously disproven.

Do you really? And if so, who cares? (I mean "who as in which webmaster would even care?" not as in, "are there any niche enthusiasts that do?").

When the parent says "is anybody", they mean "are any significant numbers". So, yeah, maybe there is 1. Or 10. Or 100 if we're generous. I doubt there are 1000 (and the website stats can easily verify it), and they surely aren't any number big enough to care about.

But even more importantly, there's no technical, ethical or other rule to say "you need to cater to the person using Netscape 2 in 2021" anymore than there's one saying "You need to sell music in wax cylinders, lest someone who still uses such a player comes to your shop".

If it was an accessibility or poverty argument sure. But it's surely not poverty the reason why someone keeps using Netscape 2.0 in 2021.

My other comment addresses your questions. Did you find it?

To summarize, if I can accomodate that one user, whatever their reasons or situation, which I do not pretend to know, instead of turning them away, then I will invest my time and effort in that.

And where Netscape 2.0 can go, so can probably another browser and configuration I,m not even aware of or anticipating.

That's awesome you spend effort to use JS in as many browsers as possible. Most sites that must work in all browsers usually avoid JS altogether.

Have you thought about creating a library for this? It could be used for progressive enhancement on sites that would normally have no JS.

I've gradually grown it into a hybrid frsmework which can be either static HTML, dynamically updated, or a middle ground (via access.log)

All the JS modules are also optional, and can be turned off with one setting.

It is not production ready yet, but demos and code can be accessed via my profile.

Is this a joke? Do you actually test your work on a Netscape 2 browser? But why?

There is no way anyone is viewing your page in anything older than IE 10. If you're in some niche market or region maybe IE 8.

Not a joke.

I believe in Any Browser.

My other reply explains my reasoning.

My niche sites see all kinds of browsers, btw.

Currently developed browsers also include Links, Lynx, Dillo, Netsurf, and w3m.