How hard you would actually have to try to make a website as horrible as this, this thing is just a meme.
1.) A subset of modern HTML / CSS, custom Javascript. Remove anything that isn't needed and especially anything that affects rendering negatively for no good reason.
1.1.) Possibly: Provide versioned, vendor neutral versions of js to allow for autocomplete.
2.) Same as 1, but with custom JS. All js must complete in a specified number of cycles. User interaction gives extra cycles.
The point of 1 is to:
- for companies: massively lower the barriers for new browsers (remove lots of backwards compatibility and the huge problem of JS)
- for security conscious users: provide a safer way to browse the web
- for users generally: provide a way to browse the web faster and more comfortably
- the point of 2.) is to provide an approximation of what we have today but in a way that automatically limits developers from abusing JS.
Otherwise, what's the point?
It really whips your browser's ass.
The incorrect hyphen is just irritating as well.
So that time with AOL covers v2.5 when it became free after starting out as shareware through to v5.666 along with the maligned WinAmp3 period. So that's whole a lot of not doing much but still producing releases for almost 15yrs. Winamp (& SHOUTcast) were sold before Verizon did it's thing with AOL.
-dro
That's... almost impressive in how bad that is. I didn't know a website COULD lock up an entire system in this day and age.
It's just... the complete opposite of what Winamp was all about, and it's horrible and leaves a bad taste in your mouth (-100 points for the atrocious "modern" website which loads MBs of Javascript, screams BIG TEXT at you, hijacks your scroll wheel, and still tells you nothing about the actual software other than it will probably suck. Oh and another -100 points for that cookie popup.)