> I really want to experience a happy medium between the barebones minimalism of Gemini and the insane free-for-all of the mainstream web.
I agree. I often find that some formats are too simple and the rest are too complicated (for example, this is the case with the Ogg container format, and also with Gemini file format and Gemini protocol), and sometimes other problems.
> In my mind, there is no reason for every website to dictate its own layout and appearance when 99% of sites could be broken down into procedural elements that could be rendered however the client preferred.
I agree that too. Often I just disable CSS.
I think that ARIA might be able to help a bit, together with HTML. (This way, nonstandard form fields can still be displayed even if the styles are disabled, if those nonstandard form fields are using ARIA, which is something that I sometimes see.) (It would be better to just design it properly the first time, but that would be difficult when everyone else does not want to do it in a better way, although using a common accessibility feature such as ARIA seems more likely to me.) So, a client program can include a mode to display the document using HTML and ARIA instead of CSS.
Rendering just how the client preferred is also making it more portable across different screens, etc, and better accessibility, than using CSS and then having to make separate mobile version and those mess.
> it seems to me that mass adoption of css and Javascript in the majority of websites was a mistake,
I think you are right. I sometimes write web pages that do not use CSS and JavaScripts (although often I will just write plain text instead of HTML, anyways).
> building a browser seems to me like trying to play catch up to a system that will never have your interests at heart
There are some features that I would want to deliberately exclude (or implement in extensions instead of the core features), and some that may be helpful to be deliberately differently. (Actually, I would move many core features into extensions instead, and some features that would usually be implemented in extensions (such as request/response overriding) into core features. Flipping around many of these things might help a bit, too, I think, to allow more versatility for extensions, better security, and better user controls, etc.)
I agree. I often find that some formats are too simple and the rest are too complicated (for example, this is the case with the Ogg container format, and also with Gemini file format and Gemini protocol), and sometimes other problems.
> In my mind, there is no reason for every website to dictate its own layout and appearance when 99% of sites could be broken down into procedural elements that could be rendered however the client preferred.
I agree that too. Often I just disable CSS.
I think that ARIA might be able to help a bit, together with HTML. (This way, nonstandard form fields can still be displayed even if the styles are disabled, if those nonstandard form fields are using ARIA, which is something that I sometimes see.) (It would be better to just design it properly the first time, but that would be difficult when everyone else does not want to do it in a better way, although using a common accessibility feature such as ARIA seems more likely to me.) So, a client program can include a mode to display the document using HTML and ARIA instead of CSS.
Rendering just how the client preferred is also making it more portable across different screens, etc, and better accessibility, than using CSS and then having to make separate mobile version and those mess.
> it seems to me that mass adoption of css and Javascript in the majority of websites was a mistake,
I think you are right. I sometimes write web pages that do not use CSS and JavaScripts (although often I will just write plain text instead of HTML, anyways).
> building a browser seems to me like trying to play catch up to a system that will never have your interests at heart
There are some features that I would want to deliberately exclude (or implement in extensions instead of the core features), and some that may be helpful to be deliberately differently. (Actually, I would move many core features into extensions instead, and some features that would usually be implemented in extensions (such as request/response overriding) into core features. Flipping around many of these things might help a bit, too, I think, to allow more versatility for extensions, better security, and better user controls, etc.)