Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Teodoro Santoni said: > Good evening, > > I'm not replying to anyone, I need a starting point to avoid demotivation for > speculating on this problem. > So, you guys wanna get your feet in lava while your hands swim in shit. > Is there something that does what, at the core, (X)HTML v.X does, without > being that shitty? > A document (or UI) format that loves to specify the tree of elements in it, > supports media elements without putting them _over_ the text, is free as in > far west freedom, and doesn't require to fuck up a parenthesis key. > Or a programming language that does what tcl/tk does, with the plethora of > tools tcl/tk offers, and can be easily restricted (it has to define rpc > services with built-in - or embedded in the #define sense - UI). The latter > is > not that mandatory, but KISS HTML would be really sad if it was unsafe for > the > clueless user. > Or both. Tcl/Tk. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Anthony J. Bentley said: > Does grep abort upon encountering invalid UTF-8 sequences in a file? No. Grep's syntax is not in file input, it is in search strings. So yes, grep always aborts encountering invalid syntax. > Does troff abort rendering on invalid macro usage? Practically never. Troff has too much of dialects and incompatibilites, and no standards to help. For HTML closer alternative is TeX, which requires user input in case of invalid macro usage and drops subtree if user refuses to deal with breakage. Also note: unlike HTML both Troff and TeX are supposed to be extensible, which makes some degree of error handling sane. HTML has no macros, no ability to include external packages or other ways to extend its syntax (well, JavaScript is a way to extend HTML, but we are talking about HTML parser, aren't we), so the only effect of relaxed parser is an accumulation of historical garbage that is carried from version to version. Just look at your user agent string to see what I mean. P.S.: HTML would become a better language if the standard (1) deprecated "" and "" tags, which are useless anyway, (2) required strict rules for tags, and (3) required UTF-8. P.P.S.: Same applies to CSS. Several tricks could make it suck times less. JavaScript can't be fixed though. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Good evening, I'm not replying to anyone, I need a starting point to avoid demotivation for speculating on this problem. So, you guys wanna get your feet in lava while your hands swim in shit. Is there something that does what, at the core, (X)HTML v.X does, without being that shitty? A document (or UI) format that loves to specify the tree of elements in it, supports media elements without putting them _over_ the text, is free as in far west freedom, and doesn't require to fuck up a parenthesis key. Or a programming language that does what tcl/tk does, with the plethora of tools tcl/tk offers, and can be easily restricted (it has to define rpc services with built-in - or embedded in the #define sense - UI). The latter is not that mandatory, but KISS HTML would be really sad if it was unsafe for the clueless user. Or both. Not fucking trolling, and thanking a lot anyone that would have more luck than me at duckduckgoing or googling. -- Teodoro Santoni
Re: [dev] fsbm
Exactly, a C rewrite will be done, I just didn't have any more time. (time to go trick or treating!) [0] It reeks of stupid OOP when it doesn't need it at all Calvin [0] http://imgur.com/k0zhqNv On 31 October 2014 17:21, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:53:28PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: >> hi, >> >> I just released fsbm [0] a small bandwidth monitor >> >> i rewrote cbm, a bandwidth meter to output to stdout instead of >> writing out to curses. I find this to be more more palatable and I can >> use it with i3 or whatever status bar system I want. the code still >> sucks, but i only just hacked out the curses part, i now just need to >> rewrite the statistics function. >> >> overall, code is sucky, but better than before. > > I think you are missing a MetaVirtualBandwidthFactoryInterface. >
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" writes: > Sorry for replying to single message with two. > > Anthony J. Bentley said: > > HTML5 has been some steps forward and some steps back. But one of the > > unambiguously good things they did was drop any pretense of SGML > > compatibility, and introduce well‐defined error handling rules (instead > > of the XML practice of dropping things on the floor as soon as it sees > > a missing angle bracket). > > IMO this is the worst thing about HTML currently. There may be only > three possible rules for sane markup language: > > * drop offendig subtree, > * abort rendering on first error or > * replace malformed document with warning. How many Unix tools behave this way? Does grep abort upon encountering invalid UTF-8 sequences in a file? No. Does troff abort rendering on invalid macro usage? Practically never. -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] fsbm
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:53:28PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > hi, > > I just released fsbm [0] a small bandwidth monitor > > i rewrote cbm, a bandwidth meter to output to stdout instead of > writing out to curses. I find this to be more more palatable and I can > use it with i3 or whatever status bar system I want. the code still > sucks, but i only just hacked out the curses part, i now just need to > rewrite the statistics function. > > overall, code is sucky, but better than before. I think you are missing a MetaVirtualBandwidthFactoryInterface.
Re: [dev] fsbm
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:53:28 -0400 Calvin Morrison wrote: > I just released fsbm [0] a small bandwidth monitor > > i rewrote cbm, a bandwidth meter to output to stdout instead of > writing out to curses. I find this to be more more palatable and I can > use it with i3 or whatever status bar system I want. the code still > sucks, but i only just hacked out the curses part, i now just need to > rewrite the statistics function. Cool! Given you have to work through the entire code anyway, have you considered a clean rewrite in C? Then maybe the code would also be readable again. :P I'll check it out later. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Sorry for replying to single message with two. Anthony J. Bentley said: > HTML5 has been some steps forward and some steps back. But one of the > unambiguously good things they did was drop any pretense of SGML > compatibility, and introduce well‐defined error handling rules (instead > of the XML practice of dropping things on the floor as soon as it sees > a missing angle bracket). IMO this is the worst thing about HTML currently. There may be only three possible rules for sane markup language: * drop offendig subtree, * abort rendering on first error or * replace malformed document with warning. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
[dev] fsbm
hi, I just released fsbm [0] a small bandwidth monitor i rewrote cbm, a bandwidth meter to output to stdout instead of writing out to curses. I find this to be more more palatable and I can use it with i3 or whatever status bar system I want. the code still sucks, but i only just hacked out the curses part, i now just need to rewrite the statistics function. overall, code is sucky, but better than before. thought any cbm users might like it, Calvin [0] https://github.com/mutantturkey/fsbm
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Anthony J. Bentley said: > The sane place is the HTTP header. Well, saner would be to assume UTF-8 > by default, but this is the next best option. No. There is only one sane place for stating encoding: the bloody standard. It should unambiguously require that no other encoding then UTF-8 may be used for HTML5, and that browser should not render document that failed UTF-8 validation. If UTF-8 ever becomes inadequate for some reason, there should be HTML6 (or whatever next number will be then), that states the next sane encoding. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
'Evening, On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:10:33PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:> Given how successful my kickstarter[0] was for hiring an assassin on > Lennart Poettering (raised 300k of initially 50k), I think it should be > feasible. With the extra-money, the perk on Richard Stallman was activated. > > Cheers > > FRIGN > Marry me. -- Teodoro Santoni
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
As I see it, modern web consists of several distinct things, that are only loosely coupled together, mostly by being accessible via the same technology: * Social networks. I personally still fail to see any value in these tools, so can't suggest anything here. * Content delivery (newspapers and blogs) venues, which are basically fancy versions of newsgroups / mailing lists. I believe that this particular class of the web use cases is the easiest to replace simply by providing mailing list backend in combination with some sane lightweight markup language, preferably like ReStructured Text. * Portable GUI software that has no dependencies, installation and local storage needs. This class of web uses is the most problematic, and I am not aware of any possible replacements. Thankfully, many services have APIs, which may be used to build more or less suckless clients. FWIW the real problem with making web suck less is that if tech behind web would not suck this much, users would be able to easily decouple interesting parts of the content, omitting ads and other things that actually allow publishers to pay their bills, making web economically viable. Another, lesser problem is that content providers are really keen on differentiating themselves, and thus use CSS/JS quirks much more then is really needed to address issues with aesthetics, usability, accessibility and other aspects. Ultimately, this need of being different will always provide incentive for making web more complex, and thus ultimately suck more. P.S.: Lately more and more sites tell me that my version of Chrome is not supported, which is probably related to surf being stuck with webkit1. Likely things will only become worse over time, so I'd probably have to switch back to Lynx soon. While it sucks, it does so much less then most GUI alternatives. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On 31/10/2014 20:45, FRIGN wrote: Yeah, but I want the XML parser. I supposed so, but since you referred to (X)HTML, I was unsure. I'd say it's hard to suck less than that as far as HTML goes... Well, look at what XHTML 2.0 tried to achieve (it was a step in the right direction). I'll never use HTML5 for the simple reason that it's a bloated hell. So you better not insult the suckless-philosophy with some HTML5-smartness. Mea maxima culpa. I'll flagellate myself tonight by writing some Java. Also it's worth noting that while it's still recommended to keep the meta charset tag in there, using any encoding other than UTF-8 is invalid HTML5 [3]. No, read your link again. It was talking about XML-documents, which actually declare the charset in a sane place (at the bloody beginning). Yeah, I had actually seen this, and had tested in a validator, but screwed up… I tried UTF-16, which is forbidden, but only because it's not an ASCII superset. ISO-8859-x only gives a warning. Duh. Regards, A.N.
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
FRIGN writes: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:04:58 +0100 > Alexandre Niveau wrote: > > > > > > Page title > > Hello world > > This is not valid XHTML. Then that’s XHTML’s deficiency. This has been valid HTML (except the doctype) for over 15 years. There’s no ambiguity either; all XML would do is add redundant elements. > > I'd say it's hard to suck less than that as far as HTML goes... > > Well, look at what XHTML 2.0 tried to achieve (it was a step in the > right direction). I'll never use HTML5 for the simple reason that > it's a bloated hell. So you better not insult the suckless-philosophy > with some HTML5-smartness. HTML is hardly what I would call a good language. But XHTML is no better. Talk about bloat—xslt? seriously? HTML, in practice, is simpler and saner than XHTML. > > Also it's worth noting that while it's still recommended to keep the > > meta charset tag in there, using any encoding other than UTF-8 is > > invalid HTML5 [3]. > > No, read your link again. It was talking about XML-documents, which > actually declare the charset in a sane place (at the bloody beginning). The sane place is the HTTP header. Well, saner would be to assume UTF-8 by default, but this is the next best option. > > I believe that all these simplifications do not break backwards > > compatibility too much (that's the whole point), but I'm not certain. > > Maybe that's the reason why you still have to use XHTML? > > Have to? XHTML is my weapon of choice, because it is not parsed with > a stupid and bloated SGML-parser but with an XML-parser. Come on. HTML hasn’t been parsed as SGML since the early 90s. HTML5 has been some steps forward and some steps back. But one of the unambiguously good things they did was drop any pretense of SGML compatibility, and introduce well‐defined error handling rules (instead of the XML practice of dropping things on the floor as soon as it sees a missing angle bracket). Talk about error handling. What should happen when you get some mojibake in UTF-8 output? Obviously you should replace with U+FFFD and continue as normal, like everything else does. But XML will terminate processing right there… if you’re lucky. More likely, you’ll see a pretty yellow screen of death and zero meaningful content. What a robust technology to base the suckless world on. The real disgusting parts of HTML5 are CSS and Javascript, and the XML bits that are seeping in, like MathML. An XHTML world would embrace those, or replace them with alternatives that are even worse. XML is just SGML with a little air freshener sprayed over it. -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:04:58 +0100 Alexandre Niveau wrote: > I'm probably missing something here, but specifically the HTML > boilerplate *did* become drastically simpler in the last few years. > Now [1] an HTML5 page is just supposed to be: > > > > > > Page title > > > Hello world > > Yeah, but I want the XML parser. Do you guys even write real HTML markup in real life? > > > Page title > Hello world This is not valid XHTML. > I'd say it's hard to suck less than that as far as HTML goes... Well, look at what XHTML 2.0 tried to achieve (it was a step in the right direction). I'll never use HTML5 for the simple reason that it's a bloated hell. So you better not insult the suckless-philosophy with some HTML5-smartness. > Also it's worth noting that while it's still recommended to keep the > meta charset tag in there, using any encoding other than UTF-8 is > invalid HTML5 [3]. No, read your link again. It was talking about XML-documents, which actually declare the charset in a sane place (at the bloody beginning). > I believe that all these simplifications do not break backwards > compatibility too much (that's the whole point), but I'm not certain. > Maybe that's the reason why you still have to use XHTML? Have to? XHTML is my weapon of choice, because it is not parsed with a stupid and bloated SGML-parser but with an XML-parser. HTML5 on the other hand is an unholy mess and you would know why if you worked more with it. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Well there are certainly two types of websites, Applications, IE open for hours, has many pages that are linked together, like Facebook, Gmail, etc then there is more of the 'content' sites, where each page stands on it's own just fine, like a news website. For portability, use what you've got. JS/HTML5/WebGL already are dominant, so just put whatever abstractly on top? On 31 October 2014 15:19, Lee Fallat wrote: > Hey, > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ralph Eastwood > wrote: >> >> Here are my uses (if your uses are significantly different or if I >> have missed something, please reply!): >> >> Browsing >> - for software (github, sourceforge, etc.) >> - for news >> - random humour >> - academic journals/articles >> >> Forums >> - reading forums >> - replying to forums >> >> Blogs >> - reading blogs >> - commenting on blog posts >> >> Online shopping >> - Amazon etc. >> >> Software bug trackers >> - Github >> >> Social networking >> - Linkedin >> - Facebook etc. >> - Twitter (I don't use it) >> >> Web applications >> - Google drive >> - Google office applications for when I can't be bothered to boot into >> Windows >> - Games (I don't play web games, but conceivably others might) > > > I think this is a great way to start. We need to break down the use > case of the web to know what everyone needs (to increase adoption of > this new "standard"). > > A lot of web sites function as interactive advertisements or > applications. An interactive advertisement is like an application, but > is more closely related to print media... > > So currently JavaScript and DOM serves as a way to manipulate a > document. Another way to see this is JavaScript and DOM allow us to > create programmable documents. Are there currently any alternatives to > this? I can only think of XML being like this off the top of my head. > We are free to use any language that supports XML (which is basically > every mainstream language). > > So to me, looks like using XML solves one problem: we can use any > language Y with document structure XML. > > Should the resulting "thing" then be just binary that is sandboxed? > > Another problem is being cross-platform. We need a technology that > supports the produced binary (could be byte code) on all systems. Said > binary can do many things, like draw, calculate, and do logic. > > So how do we get around that? > > Maybe what suckless envisions is a pure-text web where everything is > just coming in like a printer, and there is no programmable aspect. > > Just my 2 naive cents, > > Lee >
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Hey, On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ralph Eastwood wrote: > > Here are my uses (if your uses are significantly different or if I > have missed something, please reply!): > > Browsing > - for software (github, sourceforge, etc.) > - for news > - random humour > - academic journals/articles > > Forums > - reading forums > - replying to forums > > Blogs > - reading blogs > - commenting on blog posts > > Online shopping > - Amazon etc. > > Software bug trackers > - Github > > Social networking > - Linkedin > - Facebook etc. > - Twitter (I don't use it) > > Web applications > - Google drive > - Google office applications for when I can't be bothered to boot into Windows > - Games (I don't play web games, but conceivably others might) I think this is a great way to start. We need to break down the use case of the web to know what everyone needs (to increase adoption of this new "standard"). A lot of web sites function as interactive advertisements or applications. An interactive advertisement is like an application, but is more closely related to print media... So currently JavaScript and DOM serves as a way to manipulate a document. Another way to see this is JavaScript and DOM allow us to create programmable documents. Are there currently any alternatives to this? I can only think of XML being like this off the top of my head. We are free to use any language that supports XML (which is basically every mainstream language). So to me, looks like using XML solves one problem: we can use any language Y with document structure XML. Should the resulting "thing" then be just binary that is sandboxed? Another problem is being cross-platform. We need a technology that supports the produced binary (could be byte code) on all systems. Said binary can do many things, like draw, calculate, and do logic. So how do we get around that? Maybe what suckless envisions is a pure-text web where everything is just coming in like a printer, and there is no programmable aspect. Just my 2 naive cents, Lee
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
What happened to running Dis on a Javascript platform or running drawterm on HTML5/JS? Right now if you started to program sane applications in A sane langauge, making display and use easy, then just have it run over draw, why wouldn't that achieve what you guys want? On 31 October 2014 15:04, Alexandre Niveau wrote: > On 31/10/2014 16:48, FRIGN wrote: >> >> To put it simply, what has the W3C been doing all these past years? >> Right! Stacking more and more stuff on top of what was there. However, >> writing (X)HTML hasn't become simpler in any way! >> Or who can possibly remember this every time he writes a new page: >> >> >> >> > 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'> >> > > > I'm probably missing something here, but specifically the HTML boilerplate > *did* become drastically simpler in the last few years. > Now [1] an HTML5 page is just supposed to be: > > > > > > Page title > > > Hello world > > > > And that's actually the full version; thanks to tag omission [2], the > following is equivalent and also completely valid: > > > > Page title > Hello world > > I'd say it's hard to suck less than that as far as HTML goes… > > Also it's worth noting that while it's still recommended to keep the meta > charset tag in there, using any encoding other than UTF-8 is invalid HTML5 > [3]. > > I believe that all these simplifications do not break backwards > compatibility too much (that's the whole point), but I'm not certain. Maybe > that's the reason why you still have to use XHTML? > > Regards, > > A.N. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#semantics > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/document-metadata.html#attr-meta-charset >
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On 31/10/2014 16:48, FRIGN wrote: To put it simply, what has the W3C been doing all these past years? Right! Stacking more and more stuff on top of what was there. However, writing (X)HTML hasn't become simpler in any way! Or who can possibly remember this every time he writes a new page: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'> I'm probably missing something here, but specifically the HTML boilerplate *did* become drastically simpler in the last few years. Now [1] an HTML5 page is just supposed to be: Page title Hello world And that's actually the full version; thanks to tag omission [2], the following is equivalent and also completely valid: Page title Hello world I'd say it's hard to suck less than that as far as HTML goes… Also it's worth noting that while it's still recommended to keep the meta charset tag in there, using any encoding other than UTF-8 is invalid HTML5 [3]. I believe that all these simplifications do not break backwards compatibility too much (that's the whole point), but I'm not certain. Maybe that's the reason why you still have to use XHTML? Regards, A.N. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#semantics [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/document-metadata.html#attr-meta-charset
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
(Pulling in an old message across the subject change. Hopefully I got it right.) On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Daniel Camolês wrote: > Breaking compatibility would be essential. Let's pretend we could do it. Would you break compatibility once and then fix everything and then try again to be compatible again forevermore? Or would you give up on compatibility entirely? Is "suck less" a destination or a process? Kartik http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.suckless/17752/focus=17758
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:01:54 +0100 Martti Kühne wrote: > How quickly do you think you can do that? This sounds just too good to > be true... Given how successful my kickstarter[0] was for hiring an assassin on Lennart Poettering (raised 300k of initially 50k), I think it should be feasible. With the extra-money, the perk on Richard Stallman was activated. Cheers FRIGN [0]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/840600631/free-the-world-from-lennart -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:48 PM, FRIGN wrote: > > Or we go the Stalin-way, kill all members of the W3C and dictate our own > standards. > How quickly do you think you can do that? This sounds just too good to be true... cheers! mar77i
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:31:44 +0100 Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > This is what this discussion boils down too. The web is too big to be > changed with new established cultures. Yup. > > In the sense of the communist movement and the suckless interpretation > don’t go the hard way, which is not possible. China has shown to let > free development happen and use it as needed. The next step is to have > guerilla and revolutioners in key positions. Convince them and allow > simple access to the information of the web, where Javascript is the > current enemy. Or we go the Stalin-way, kill all members of the W3C and dictate our own standards. > The first priority for changing the web is to make it more usable for > *us*, the people trying to use the commandline to use the web and script > the data returned. Here web developers won’t change and aren’t consid‐ > ered qualified in their mass to be convincable. Next is the web > browsers, which are software and on *our* level of concern. The browsers > are a VM for a common interface now standardized and know as »the Web«. > In this VM the DOM is the interesting part and how it’s represented. To be really feasible, you would need some kind of artificial intelligence which can untangle today's websites into a logical system. The main issue I see is that people don't understand what the DOM is and use it non-semantically. The DOM-noise how I like to call it is the main reason why it is so painful to do web-dev nowadays. > What's needed for the next steps: > * Someone who knows any of the popular web rendering engines very well > and can modify them without ending up in psychiatry. > * The rendering engine needs to be modified to be reused for the > points below. Well, we'd need the big players on-board to change the rendering-engines. A cumulative effort could change things (look at SPDY). > * An abstraction of the DOM to be reused more easily on the commandline. > (Maybe some daemon mode to run a browser and control it.) > * Appropriate tools to handle the different exchange formats (images, > audio, XML, JSON etc.) > * Be able to easily switch to »normal mode« to have the a backward-compa- > tibility. Someone already said it, but if a profound change has to happen anyway, why not rethink the whole idea of a DOM? I think the basic model of a web-browser should not have to deal with objects of any kind (images, video, web-application, webgl, ...). The basic standard should be very strict in separating semantics and presentation (kinda like LaTeX), but not define too much. Instead of a stacked approach, it should be an axiomatic model. To put it simply, what has the W3C been doing all these past years? Right! Stacking more and more stuff on top of what was there. However, writing (X)HTML hasn't become simpler in any way! Or who can possibly remember this every time he writes a new page: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'> And that's the basic stuff. Now, you can tell me that there are default values for that, but often, this breaks (one word: charsets) and most people have no idea what the fuck is going on. Another aspect is site layout. You have to be a CSS-wizard to know how to align div's vertically next to each other. I bet many people would already jump on the train if we designed a new type of markup which made stuff like this simple (again, an axiomatic approach). (X)HTML could be considered axiomatic, but it isn't. Even though everything is block-oriented, the entire system is full of contradictions. So let me know what you think. FRIGN -- FRIGN
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 03:31:44PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote: > What's needed for the next steps: > * Someone who knows any of the popular web rendering engines very well > and can modify them without ending up in psychiatry. Game over. There are only 2.5 "popular" and "usuable" open source www engines, webkit, blink (webkit-ish) and gecko. Those are far beyond the limit of sanity as those are brain damaged c++ object-oriented massive kludge. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 03:31:44PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote: > * The rendering engine needs to be modified to be reused for the points below. As I said before, after a little chat with one of the main netsurf dev, the current complexity of the web is due to javascript/the dynamic dom. > Anyone steps up? I would rather define which www sites are "critical" and go push hard for a 0-javascript basic html www portal and/or a *simple* web API (not OAuth which requires the use of one of the previous www renderers). I'll go to trial if I'm ignored. regards, -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] rebooting the web (it was: surf rewrite for WebKit2GTK)
Greetings. On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:31:44 +0100 Ralph Eastwood wrote: > Hopefully my discussion/argument makes sense - a friend of mine told > me that the idea sounded like imposing a Communist regime on the > masses :) This is what this discussion boils down too. The web is too big to be changed with new established cultures. In the sense of the communist movement and the suckless interpretation don’t go the hard way, which is not possible. China has shown to let free development happen and use it as needed. The next step is to have guerilla and revolutioners in key positions. Convince them and allow simple access to the information of the web, where Javascript is the current enemy. The first priority for changing the web is to make it more usable for *us*, the people trying to use the commandline to use the web and script the data returned. Here web developers won’t change and aren’t consid‐ ered qualified in their mass to be convincable. Next is the web browsers, which are software and on *our* level of concern. The browsers are a VM for a common interface now standardized and know as »the Web«. In this VM the DOM is the interesting part and how it’s represented. What's needed for the next steps: * Someone who knows any of the popular web rendering engines very well and can modify them without ending up in psychiatry. * The rendering engine needs to be modified to be reused for the points below. * An abstraction of the DOM to be reused more easily on the commandline. (Maybe some daemon mode to run a browser and control it.) * Appropriate tools to handle the different exchange formats (images, audio, XML, JSON etc.) * Be able to easily switch to »normal mode« to have the a backward-compa- tibility. Anyone steps up? Sincerely, Christoph Lohmann
