Consider the number of websites that use a shit ton of styles, images, advertising, javashit, whatever. All that is shitty cruft that you don't want to have to wade through to get to the important part: data.
Fortunately, many major Web 3.0 Bullshyte websites have RESTful APIs too (mostly JSON), allowing you to gain access to structured information in a consistent way.
Enter stage left: A scriptable, customisable program that, given an interface description for a particular website or data source, will show you the data you want in the format you want.
A true separation of interface from implementation.
However, there are drawbacks. Each data source will need its own interface design (but enough people who care coupled with a few public databases, that will not be a problem). Websites will lose ad revenue. The WWW as we use it will change.
So, /anus/ - is it worth it? Is there a need for such a program? Are there more, more serious drawbacks I haven't thought of? Am I just overreacting to Youtube's fiftieth redesign in the past three months?
>>2,5
That's what it's known as, so whatever. Also, >>2 - me too. >>3
I suppose you write everything in shell scripts and ASM? >>4
I'd like to know that too. I'd also like to know why I can't watch videos and view images in plaintext either.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-07 15:18
>>8
Not everything, I sometimes write stuff in Perl too.
>>11
nonono, you're putting that upside down
puny so-called web*masters* will be forced to write programs with _predictable_ properties such as **correctness** and **time of execution** in their language of choice congruent to the nonturingscript of browsers of future
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-07 21:03
>A scriptable, customisable program that, given an interface description for a particular website or data source, will show you the data you want in the format you want.
basically, it's what web browsers do.
and it's infinitely easier to alter their output than to write a program in your way. just use adblock or write your own ad blocker or style sheet.
What is there to un-ignore, this idea is unscientific and ultimately destructive. They're all accessible by trackable, revocable and eventually billable API keys only, that's even better than them pushing cookies. Its also only usable with VC funded walled garden money pits that inadvertently enforces a computational divide between two kinds of web requiring two different programs, one of them has infinite amounts of money and the other is a bunch of chans, wordpress splogs, small forums and Mentifex manifestos. Its as if this plan would play directly into their own hands. Ah yes, this browser already exists, its the iPhone App Store.
At the moment I am busy doing something like that — wrappers for sites like Google, Youtube, Twitter, blogs, that allow presenting content in an uniform way.
My goal is to completely replace web interfaces, so I have to deal with an awful lot of problems. However, I’m not going to drop the idea :)
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-08 11:21
And, as a matter of fact, I want people to *start* getting revenue, not to lose it. Imagine getting money for a Twitter post.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-08 11:26
>Imagine getting money for a Twitter post.
i imagine myself writing twitter bot
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-08 11:32
Ugh, no. What I meant is that this “non-browser browser” would be paid, with people paying money every month to access it. Their money would be paid to content creators.
>>27
This. I prefer complex relational database systems that can't be read by humans or computers, to the point where we need ``APIs'' just so they can be.
SQL is fine manipulating data and getting it presented, but for a protocol, use gopher. You can make a daemon that publishes for gopher the new SQL updates. I mean, I announced on my email address what I use, and it because I think that way, and it is more efficient with multiple extended queries.
If bin, what is your struct?
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-08 16:46
>>34
He must like XML, it's like plaintext, but not.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-08 17:01
When you have more markup than data, you have a serious problem.
I wish Firefox was more barebones. People have been complaining since 3.x that it's been going downhill and I agree. Everything besides Gecko, SpiderMonkey, XUL and the basic UI does not belong in the browser. Tab groups, app tabs, 3D developer view, etc. all belong in the extension domain.
personally i use opera because it's the best but there is a lot of them, it depends on your system and what you want. i like luakit on linux, some people like midori etc
there is few engines though, sure. basically there are 4 major ones - webkit, gecko, presto and trident, where presto and trident are proprietary
>>46
Pretty much vanilla. I'm leaving it anyway, I got it because I thought it'd be cool to use it and awesomewm while I learned lua, but then all three ended up sucking hideously.
>>37
One thing that really pisses me off (and if it weren't for this FF3 would be my main browser on Windows) is how sluggish it is to load the browser. Compared to something like IE6 it just feels so damn heavy.
(Sites keep nagging me to upgrade. Fuck them. I'm not interested in your fancy JS shit. Compare e.g. ImagesHack with JS on and off and you'll see what I mean.)
They should trim down the core feature set and focus on improvements and meeting standards instead of ``user experience'' and fancy tools less than 1% of users even know exist.
Eventually you will face the problem of certain websites simply not working. Not just Web worker DOM storage integrated apps, but some of the sane parts of HTML5 that improve on HTML 4.01 and XHTML.
I think a nice proof-of-concept browser would be one that supports only a sensible subset of HTML5 and CSS3, perhaps zomgoptimized, then seeing how well it fares on the ``real'' Web.
You have been visited by the Spooky Skeleton! Repost this 3 times in the next 2 minutes seconds or you will be visited by a Spooky Skeleton tonight! 95% of people will not post this..... and they will become skeleton.....
Recently I've been working with JS and I'm very enthusiastic about this language. I know that there is node.js for running JS at server side, but is there a shell that uses JS as a scripting language? If such thing exists, how usable & stable is it?
Eventually you will face the problem of certain websites simply not working.
And nothing of value was lost.
The "sensible subset" is difficult to determine; some things like CSS animations, gradients, rounded corners, etc. are obviously eyecandy, but what about other heavy but possibly useful features like embedded SVG/MathML? It's tempting to start with HTML4/CSS2 and add to it, but then you'll eventually end up with something as bloated as the full set.
This is an interesting read: http://www2012.wwwconference.org/proceedings/proceedings/p41.pdf AOL and Picasa both contain large images but the CSS energy consumption for AOL is much lower than Picasa's. The reason is that AOL uses HTML tables to position its images while Picasa uses CSS to position images. This nicely illustrates how positioning using CSS is less energy efficient than positioning using simple HTML tags.
Surprised? I sure wasn't. All that "but it isn't semantic" bullshit can't beat actual measurements.
>>59
How the fuck can someone be enthusiastic about JS?
IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-18 11:14
>>60
Bullshite micro-optimisations.
It doesn't matter how much more joules a website consumes. What matters is if the site visibly reduces the battery lifetime during normal usage.
>>74 Perl whitelist? These guys are just posturing to seem oldskool. Who the shit cares if some dead fucking language only used to make cheeto-stained sysadmin scripts is running behind a website, other than to namedrop that irrelevant piece of Unix history?
Either way, having a complex graphical program behave as if it had an interactive textual interface is just the worse of both worlds.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-29 0:40
>>77
Noob, perl isn't a ``dead fucking language''.
Fuck off, you don't belong here, /jp/ lamer.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-29 1:08
>>78
Noob? Who the hell even uses that word anymore? Oh, that's right, Slashdot, the only other place where Perl has any credibility left. Why don't you go back there, with your other sysadmin friends? Maybe you could show off that righteous RTFM t-shirt you got.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-29 1:15
>>79
Slashdot? Pah. I hang around real sites for hackers. Yeah, that's right, hackers. You talk so much about hacking, but you cant talk about hacking because you cant actually do anything. I run a hacked network of computers that I programmed to click on googles ads in my secret website. I even write my own viruses to make people get hacked into my network. I work at home and have a bunch of screens showing me what people on my network are doing on their screens. I can even set it so that i can see the code of their computers. can you guys do any of that? I dont think so. I bet you dont know where all the websites real hackers hang out are either? if you name them, I just might tell them that marshviperX sent you.
If you can write a full HTML5+CSS3+JS5 browser in a single .exe of 200KB, that would be awesome. But this is just another UI around an existing browser, so it doesn't count.
Why is /prog/ not usable from w3m? The reply button does not react.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-29 10:20
>>83
Because shiichan does funky things with links, and w3m gets scared of relative paths and hides like the WUSS it is. Use a real browser like elinks.
>>81
Looks like the wikipedia page needs an update. It's roughly 55MB.
>>83
Just hit enter in the Text box, or send a HTTP_POST to POST post HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-Length: $LENGTH_OF_STRING_BELOW
bbs=prog&id=1354906980& lol what 2&kotehan=$NAME&meiru=$EMAILin25CHAR&form1354906980=$YOUR_MESSAGE_HERE%HEX%ANYHING%ELSE&email=%27
You can even use Curl for the submission. The $VARIABLES is all you have to change.