The non-browser browser

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?

RESTful
Back to /r/Stacker Overnews, ``please''.

_{No but really I'd write a browser that uses S-exprs instead of HTML and actual Scheme for the scripting.}

I don't see the point. netcat is plenty scriptable and customizable.

When did ordinary plaintext stop being valid data? Who decided we need ``APIs'' for everything?

RESTful is the new DHTML!

http://www.textfiles.com/underconstruction/mnmnlerner2000imageshebrew-construction.gif

>>6
Shalom!

>>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.

>>8
Not everything, I sometimes write stuff in Perl too.

i wish term ``scripting language'' implied ``non-turing complete language''

>>10
The fuck use would it have then?

>>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

>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.

>>13
Now un-ignore the rest of >>1.

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.

>>15
The Jews are after you.

You Mena Gopher, and Daemons did this?

-- Brought you by SSH and the letter AWK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Access
It wasn't me, it was michael.
But he's on yer hand isn't he? I mean, yer the one who made him do it.
Nooooooooooo!!

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 :)

And, as a matter of fact, I want people to *start* getting revenue, not to lose it. Imagine getting money for a Twitter post.

>Imagine getting money for a Twitter post.

i imagine myself writing twitter bot

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.

you are sick, nobody would ever pay for a browser, even if it's a "non-browser browser", the time of paid browsers was gone long ago

People still pay to access content. Of course, the piece of software itself would be free — but nothing else.

>>8
I'd also like to know why I can't watch videos and view images in plaintext either.
mplayer -vo aa [file]

Some sort of Gopher proxy/tunnel for common Web sites would be swell.

so many brainwashed UNIX tards

``plain text'' is crap!

>>27
Back to /r/Stacker Overjews, please.

>>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.

I store XML in my Oracle Database!

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/xml_ascent.png

>>29
as if plain text is any less ad hoc and shitty

>>27
I want to know, what the hell do you use?

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?

>>34
He must like XML, it's like plaintext, but not.

When you have more markup than data, you have a serious problem.

Example:
http://pastebin.com/sA0Wkq4M

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.

hint - firefox isn't the only browser
and i don't mean that steaming pile of shit from google either

>>38
what else is there?

>>39
palemoon and chromium