On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Charlie Kester <corky1...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sat 24 Oct 2009 at 12:35:36 PDT Uriel wrote: >> >> writing an http client that will handle all the crap out there is >> *really* hard > > Why is this the goal? > > Why, when I want to browse a sane website like suckless.org, for > example, should I have to use a browser containing a bunch of convoluted > code designed to handle the kind of "crap" you mean? I'd like to be > able to use a browser that, because it's only intended for use with > non-crappy sites, can be written in a way that's simpler, less buggy and > more secure.
Then go use abaco. The rest of us need a browser that can deal with crap, because 99.99% of the websites out there run on http servers that suck, and produce html/js/flash/whatever which consists of mountains of fermented diseased elephant feces. > If I'm browsing a suckless webpage in a suckless browser and click a > link to a page that sucks, perhaps the right thing to do is to open that > page in an external browser (which probably also sucks)? > Couldn't we have something like mime types for websites, reflecting > their use (or non-use) of various "crap" and associating them with > appropriately-written browsers? We have gone over this a billion times: the web intrinsically *sucks*, get over it, and stop trying to wish it away, it doesn't work. uriel
