Our respective ideas of what constitutes complexity appear to differ. Both of your alternatives are far too complex for what I envision of less complexity. I envision a browser that browses hypertext, not a program that automatically runs third party code.

Further, I do not think of browsers in terms of "market share" nor testing for one browser or another. I guess I have done a poor job explaining the point about standards.

Testing input, e.g. a webpage, against a program, e.g. a browser, is backwards, IMO. A program should be tested against input. If the program fails given legal input, then if desired, fix the program.

The web contains plenty of legal input for a wide variety of clients. I am consuming it everyday.

This plain fact appears to be outside of Mozilla's purview. But to me, a user, this is what the "open web" means, much more so than a squabble between Mozilla developers working on Firefox and former Mozilla developers working on Chrome over some exotic feature to entice web developers.

The "open" web to me means I can retrieve information with a simple open source client I can compile, and without an overly complex web browser controlled by a corporation/organization that is by its complex nature unreasonably difficult to compile except for a select few people. That is not "open" within the meaning I subscribe to, which is more along the lines of "accessible".

The more complex the browser becomes and thus the more complex the input that web developers create for it, the less "open" the web becomes, because it becomes less accessible.

I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but I at least hope that these points make some sense.