I am sick and tired of constantly reviewing settings in web browsers to see if they have snuck in some new tracking mechanism that I get to disable because "your privacy is important to us".
I am sick and tired of all the black UX that goes into this, like opt out instead of opt in, or at least providing top level choices like, say, Fuck NO I'd NEVER EVER Like You To Track ANYTHING Now And In Every Perceivable Future. Like sync'ing every setting in your profile except tracking related settings, because hey that way you might by mistake opt out of tracking on another installation where you really wanted to be tracked. The list goes on and on.
Browsers are critical infrastructure and clearly an open source stamp on them fails in itself to provide any meaningful shield towards capitalist subversion.
I'd like a browser with a license that explicitly rules out *any* kind of commercial entity or interest contributing or directing development.
probably could blame the WHATWG for that
@meeper @Retrograde Who are WHATWG? Google, Mozilla, Apple. Mostly Google.
WHATWG was founded thinking W3C were moving too slow, and wanting the excitement of new features!
there were more reasons though tbh and the w3c isn't the smartest even then web stabdards absolutely sucked
For example for stuff like xml even early on a lot of people well telling it's technical dismerits, and then we have stuff like css which gradually became a start of the mess
compare this to say IETF, writing a http server is trivial.
Instead of webassembly or other messed up things we need to start something new lol and maybe fast (before everything becomes a chrome)
And probably keep it simple sane and pragmatic (weak devices exist and we need to keep it accessible for them, like display just the text and images (and ads even ffs, just not be intrusive) and also isolate stuff properly
There are ways to do this and I have a few ideas that may be realized sometime (probably someone has already thought of something better though).
Anyway people need to accept that the web is a terrible platform and not the future
(also one may consider how old terminals are still being emulated 40 years later, they were massively simple. now imagine a complex abomination like the web..
Maybe even consider how other organisations have a bunch of member companies, and yet the WHATWG which make standards that affect everyone are limited to a few companies, and that to join you must already be a major browser distributer and be voted in by the rest)
So yeah, not make those mistakes and do it in an agnostic way
or we get another incremental mess
Disclaimer: I may not know what I'm saying :P
what's the beef with XML? As far as I know there isn't a general data format with schema support as comprehensive as XML, besides the ability to combine data types from disparate data models.
I'll link a few papers you could consider in a bit
@meeper I'd be interested.
Parsing definitely does have some undesirable costs--for programs I design, I try to avoid XML in message traffic for that reason, preferring JSON or something ad-hoc if I don't need the extensibility in the message format.
Some of the overhead though I think comes from redundancy in the opening and closing tags? I vaguely remember an article which discussed alternatives that were considered like </> for closing tags, omitting the element name), but I think that was decided against so that errors could be understood more readily.
