> let us make simple, secure content with HTML and minimal CSS.
Browsers aren't stopping you or Wikipedia or Youtube from sticking to HTML and minimal CSS.
Your problem isn't with browsers, it's with Web developers who don't share your priorities.
Browsers aren't stopping you or Wikipedia or Youtube from sticking to HTML and minimal CSS.
Your problem isn't with browsers, it's with Web developers who don't share your priorities.
You're right there's a chicken/egg problem: no-one's going to use that fantasy browser, because it can't browse the Web. We know this because faster experimental browsers exist, and essentially no-one uses them. Even browsers with tens or hundreds of millions of users struggle to get Web developer attention, even when they're almost completely compatible with the dominant browser and don't require fundamentally rearchitecting, and arguably crippling, one's Web site.
Also, from a technical point of view, ripping out JS and DOM APIs does not magically mean you get a "wicked-fast, private, secure browser". It would be a lot more secure, but building a fast HTML/CSS rendering engine that still has to handle window resizing, zooming, incremental loading, editing and other interaction is still incredibly hard, in fact not hugely easier than supporting JS. (Source: I'm a former Mozilla distinguished engineer who worked on this stuff.) By far the easiest path to such a browser would be to take an existing engine and rip out stuff, and I don't think you're going to end up with something much faster. Disabling JS in a regular browser is going to give you most of the wins.
True, general web layout is a hard problem. But there are a lot of knobs to turn. What if we removed CSS layout altogether, and only allowed linear pages, a la reader mode? That's a big tradeoff, but maybe it would work. If that's too much, maybe only allowing flexbox would be enough. As for editing, at that point you're making a web app.
Are you getting rid of Web forms now? Also, remember that at the very beginning Berners-Lee's WorldWideWeb browser supported HTML editing, so it's definitely part of some vision of the "good old days".
Yes, if you cut down or eliminate CSS, or just redesign it, you could build a faster renderer.
But these questions point to one of major defects of the "cut-down Web" vision: lots of people have a limited set of Web features that they like, but they tend not to agree on what that set is. You like flexbox. Some people really like grid. Some people really need ruby, or floats, or columns, or editing, or vertical breaking (pagination). Pretty soon you've got something nearly as complicated as real CSS.
Democracy to the rescue:
1. Start a FLOSS mailing list thread to get as much input as possible on the best starting point for this reduced set of functionality. Gopher, resurrecting Xanadu, revisiting Hypercard, and so on. Let the conversation flow.
2. Invite the people who chose Firefox Reader View to private gitlab instance and get to work.
But the demand isn't that big, and the effort wouldn't have much return.
The browser you describe already exists, it's one with JS disabled, and you ignore the sites which don't work without it. This is how I browse every day.
I don't feel like I'm missing much.
I enable JS for reddit because I have to mod things, but I find myself visiting that site less and less now. HN works. Facebook works (good enough.) Gmail works. Google Search and DDG work. GitHub... meh.
I seriously hope this will never happen.
This is sort of like saying: Just because the computer doesn't have a password doesn't stop you from simply not using computers you're not supposed to. So your problem is not with the lack of passwords but with people who use computers they aren't supposed to.
You can get most of the security benefits by disabling JS in the browser.