On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Pinocchio<cchino...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:26:05 -0700, frederic <fduboi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:51:46 +0200, Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Pinocchio<cchino...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> A few months ago lobobrowser.org caught my eye. Its a browser written in >>>> java (hold on... don't kick me off the list... :) ) but the thing I >>>> liked >>>> about it was its support for alternative document formats. It supports >>>> JavaFX out of the box and that's definitely a more suckless version of >>>> document rendering / scripting than HTML + Javascript. >>> >>> You better kick yourself out of this universe. WTF are you smoking? >>> >> >> So, the only way is to get rid of the whole "Web" stack and to rewrite a >> "sane" one. This would mean: >> * defining a protocol that would play the role of HTTP, > > I don't think that would be necessary. HTTP is okay. HTML + Javascript is > the non-suckless part.
If you think HTTP is 'okay', you have *no fucking clue about HTTP*. There is a reason the suckless.org http project never got anywhere: writting an http server (or client) sucks because the protocol is *insane*. One could define a mostly sane subset of HTTP, which is my goal with HTTP 0.2: http://http02.cat-v.org but it is not easy, because again the protocol is such a huge mess and there are tons of implementations out there all broken int heir own sick ways. uriel P.S.: People interested in working on HTTP 0.2 are welcome, I wont have the time or stomach to do it for some time... > >> * defining a format for interactive documents and applications. The tricky >> thing here is that this format should be convenient for both usages and >> for "middle" cases. > > That's the whole idea. I believe that it is possible to get something usable > without a lot of code bloat. The basics should be good so that "web" sites > can get more complicated things done with their own code. > >> >> Of course it has to be totally incompatible with the current "web stack", >> browser included. It can be quite a problem for wide acceptance; the >> majority of "web users" today are, I think, not computer literates. >> > > It doesn't need wide acceptance. Dwm doesn't need wide acceptance as long as > it works with most of the useful X11 applications. Dwm would do fine with a > bunch of folks who care about a suckless window manager. This "new webstack" > would be something similar. There are no hidden plans to conquer the world > here :). > >> But maybe one may walkaround that by providing browser plugins to handle >> that document format together with the actual platform. >> >> > > Yeah, that's definitely an option. However, I think I would favor a method > where this document format could be changed on the server side to HTML + > Javascript for the regular browsers. I am saying this because even after a > lot of marketing muscle and commercial force, it has been hard for Adobe, > Sun and Microsoft to push their rendering stacks over HTML + Javascript. > Flash is the only thing which gained major adoption... and the picture might > change once HTML 5 comes out. > > If you read my previous post again, I also mentioned why a new web document > format is not an insane idea. Web frontend programmers don't directly > program in HTML + Javascript. They use some middle-ware (GWT for eg.) which > takes care of quirks between different browsers. If you think about browsers > as a "machine" to run your applications, HTML + Javascript is literally the > assembly of that machine. > > What I am suggesting is the following: > - Come up with a "suckless" document rendering / scripting format (a > new RISC like assembly if you will... from the machine analogy above) > - Write a browser for that format > - Add a plugin to display HTML + Javascript (use an existing > rendering framework like webkit) > - Write server side converters for the format to HTML + Javascript > - Regular browsers default to the HTML + Javascript format of > the content > - Suckless browsers query for the "suckless" version of the > content and use that. > > Benefits of going the suckless format: > - Concise, hacker friendly, open source implementation. > - Rapid evolution of the format to new usage scenarios. > - Platform support, acceleration > - Warm fuzzy feeling of using less RAM + CPU cycles for rendering web > content. > > -- > Pinocchio > >
