1. 6
  1. 14

    It is kind of telling that the only conceivable want is the addition of a new feature. More, more, more, that’s all we want.

    1. 13

      The web I want does not require browsers with fancy features.

      1. 7

        Here’s my answer. They won’t pick it, I’m sure.

        I want a simpler web that allows meaningful browser competition

        The required feature set for a “fully functional” browser has grown too large, and it is no longer possible to compete in the browser space. Firefox and Chrome are enormously complex beasts, and even Firefox is lagging behind in the market because Chrome keeps adding features. The duopoly is quickly becoming a monopoly, and a monopoly does not serve us well. (In the modern world, I need to use the web; if websites only support Chrome, then I am being forced to run a piece of software not of my choosing.)

        We don’t need more features, we need fewer. Every new feature comes at the cost of user empowerment.

        1. 2

          I hate to be the one to break up the circlejerk, but how is “a web with fewer features” even remotely possible without, you know, breaking all the pages? (I am, now that I know about it, kind of ticked off by the removal of <isindex>, because that seems to violate backwards compatibility).

          1. 4

            How can we possibly disable the flash plugin???

            1. 2

              We didn’t. We just forced everyone who had business value tied up in it to stick with IE11, potentially forever.

              1. 1

                “Forever” is a heck of a long time.

          2. 1

            I’d like <ISINDEX> support back, please, besides any other backwards compatibility they may have broken recently for no real reason.

            1. 1

              I assume your objection is to the removal of any functionality, rather than that one in particular? Because that one 1) depends on server interaction and therefore isn’t very relevant archivally, and 2) can easily be replaced by a form.