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?

>>74
0.2MB
Webkit itself is bigger than that.

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.

>>81
.exe
No thank you.

Why is /prog/ not usable from w3^m? The reply button does not react.

>>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.

55MB
That puts it at slightly smaller than Chrome and Firefox, but still HUGE compared to Opera.

>>86
Opera of 2013. Opera of the future is going to be just as bloat-fucked as Chrome

>>85
[...]& lol what 2&kotehan[...]
Is the lol what 2 necessary? Why?

 ☢☢☢☢COCKS　COCKS　COCKS☢☢☢☢

Oh my yes how I loved my jam sandwiches.
Some days father would take us to the wood and nature would reveal her wondrous secrets

 I FUCKING LOVE BIRDS!