Post #2173500
2026-05-06 20:44 UTC
Replies (14)
-
@otyugh@pouet.chapril.org 2026-05-06 20:50
@dillo@fosstodon.org ❤️
-
@SRAZKVT@tech.lgbt 2026-05-06 21:01
@dillo@fosstodon.org a subset of xml could be reasonable, but agree, it should be strict. one big thing to do also would be handling security. would there be forms ? what about embedded pages (web iframes) ? what image formats would be required to support ? similarly, would the transport protocol be redone ? http is pretty bad, and newer versions are quite complex, surely something simpler is possible other than that, though, i like the idea i also think something like css , for styling (but also strict, and people use a preprocessor to expand if they need something better) would be good, allows each place to have a distinct style
-
@akkartik@merveilles.town 2026-05-06 21:08
@dillo@fosstodon.org One end of the spectrum is a 600-line markup language in which I can do grid layouts. https://akkartik.name/post/2025-03-08-devlog https://akkartik.name/post/luaML2
-
@kirtai@tech.lgbt 2026-05-06 21:09
@dillo@fosstodon.org I despise the very concept of a "living standard" with the heat of a thousand fiery suns.
-
@tseitr@mastodon.sdf.org 2026-05-06 21:43
@dillo@fosstodon.org I would sure love to see this happen. I would definitely participate, the current web disgust me.
-
@humm@bsd.network 2026-05-06 21:46
@dillo@fosstodon.org If we drop scripting (including css) and the expectation of the same rendering in all user agents (from what people expect user agents to do), it may make writing new user agents easy enough to have an appreciable effect, even without simplifying the HTML grammar a lot. And new user agents should support old websites written in non-XML HTML—reimplementations of Web-like things exist (for example gemini), but after all, I want a fork, not something new. Does something exist or can we establish something like an open “small user agents group” or whatever where we can start by collectively writing on a website “Let it be known: User agents are henceforth not expected to implement CSS or JavaScript”?
-
@pkw@snac.d34d.net 2026-05-06 21:47
Nice! I have been basically doing this, (others to I think). All my new sites have been very minimal html with zero javascript. I have a wiki and a task tracker. They both support convieniences like multi select check boxes (select all / select none). It's very nice, because I am interacting with data not a "web page". They work in dillo. Sometimes I have to fiddle with the caching headers on really dynamic stuff.
-
@raulmatias@mstdn.social 2026-05-06 23:17
@dillo@fosstodon.org > Text should be able to wrap the screen size, so that the same document can be read both in small and large screens. What about custom layouts? If you don't intend to include any CSS into the fork, then surely tables will be a part of the markup, and therefore people will abuse them for layouts?
-
@i_dabble@merveilles.town 2026-05-07 07:48
@dillo@fosstodon.org > So it would need to be reviewed if HTML/XML is a suitable format for simple parsing. I haven't implemented a browser, yet, but my initial reaction to this is that XML comes with schemas, which would be very useful for enforcing a grammar. The tools already exist. Don't throw out the baby... etc.
-
@DLC@mstdn.social 2026-05-07 08:24
@dillo@fosstodon.org maybe consider: Absolute URLs are exclusively for hyperlinks to another webpage. Webpages should have been restricted to load files only by relative URLs & never load any file by absolute URLs. Also, per website style design was a terrible UX and accessibility mistake #Stylesheets should've been something you install in your own browser such that "the web" would have the uniform look and feel you prefer. Just a thought
-
@dillo@fosstodon.org 2026-05-09 15:37
From the orange site, "Strict grammar for declaring documents is merely a fetish". Isn't that the best name for a document format to be load in the #Dillo browser?
-
@karlb@fosstodon.org 2026-05-08 15:05
@dillo@fosstodon.org That sounds like #geminiprotocol (https://geminiprotocol.net/) in many ways. I assume you know about it, so I wonder why it is not a good candidate in your eyes. Too restrictive (no inline links)? Too different (no HTTP)?
-
@felix@wandering.shop 2026-05-09 12:31
@dillo@fosstodon.org I remember reading the HTML 4.01 spec forwards and backwards, marveling at how well written it was. I'd start from it again and only backport the good parts from HTML 5: structural elements like header / nav / footer, newer HTML entities like ☆ and stuff like that. Might have to drop a few things in the process. Heck, let's go back to HTML 3.2 and start again from there, like text browsers did.
-
@niutech@fosstodon.org 2026-05-11 17:56
@dillo@fosstodon.org Why not just go back to HTML 4.01? Or render Markdown as an alternative to HTML?