[mindcrime]

I would love browsers to split document-mode (think static content) and application mode (think single-page web app).

Yeah, exactly. A given page should be able to request "application mode" and the user should be able to say "OK" or "NO", or just navigate away if they don't want an "application" doing stuff.

For our SPA we have needs that are not related to documents (restricting the viewport zoom, fixed toolbars at top and bottom, preferably hide browser URL and toolbars). Heaps of modern browser functionality such as WebWorkers and notifications is only really relevant to web apps.

Yep, yep. Glad I'm not the only one who agrees with this. I've been thinking about floating this idea for a while, but I kinda figured everybody would just say "that's stupid". :-)

[TeMPOraL]

That's not stupid. That's awesome, and probably the right thing to do.

Except it won't happen, because users and publishers have conflicting interests in this. I refer to it as war over control over presentation. This is why publishers say that ad-blocking is wrong (they assume it's their right to tell you exactly how you should consume content). This is why you get DRM. This is part of the reason why Flash used to be popular with companies. This is why RSS is not. I believe that if given a chance, most companies would gladly send you their webpages as opaque .exe files. We just got lucky that the Web, down to HTTP protocol itself, was initially designed to give users most of control.

I don't know of a solution. I know we can try to win battles, by building and proposing software that lets more people exercise more control over their browsers. Unfortunately, I feel that organizations responsible for the Web - the consortia and browser vendors - are all fighting on the side of publishers now. Browsers are starting to function less as User Agents, and more as remote terminals.

[mindcrime]

I don't know of a solution. I know we can try to win battles, by building and proposing software that lets more people exercise more control over their browsers. Unfortunately, I feel that organizations responsible for the Web - the consortia and browser vendors - are all fighting on the side of publishers now.

Yeah, that's a real problem for sure.

Browsers are starting to function less as User Agents, and more as remote terminals.

I know, I've been railing against this for probably 8 or 9 years now... with little to show for it, unfortunately. Probably for the reasons you just cited. sigh

[TeMPOraL]

I fear that the only thing we can do is to keep on designing user-respecting sites and tooling that lets users control the way they consume content, and just let the web fork. Leave the money-driven web for moneymakers and people satisfied with that state, and let a productive web develop on the side of it.

[gordaco]

> I believe that if given a chance, most companies would gladly send you their webpages as opaque .exe files.

This is exactly why "mobile app" versions of webpages (facebook, reddit, you name it) are so prevalent. Of course it's also why I would never use them under any circumstance.

I like the way you put it, "war over control over presentation". It hits the nail on the head and it describes something that has been happening for a long, long time.

[astrobe_]

There's no solution as long as you are dealing with companies whose business is to sell information (the "publishers").

The only winning condition is to deal with people who are willing to exchange information. FOSS, Wikipedia are projects based on this model. They have shown that throwing contributors at the problem can achieve decent results.

Part of the solution is to use a distributed file system for this, so that users who don't contribute to the content however support hosting and transmission costs directly and automatically.

We don't need yet another commercial or non-profit social network. We need non-commercial contribution networks.

[apostacy]

> This is part of the reason why Flash used to be popular with companies.

I would happily go back to flash. However bad flash was, it was at least external to the browser. I could turn it off globally and things would get much lighter and memory would be freed up. All we have done with html5 is integrate the shitty functionality into the core of our browser.

The one thing that Mozilla had to do was not normalize this crap, and they wouldn't do it because they weren't hip enough or something.

Publishers don't have as much control as you think. I've seen so many failed experiments in years past. This is our fault. We enabled them to abuse us.

[aaaaaaaaaab]

It’s always the users who have the final word. Otherwise we’d still be watching TV.

[TeMPOraL]

It's more complex than that. When every page out of given category (e.g. news, shopping) makes the same decisions, you don't have anything to say except not to use them at all. Not read the news (easy) and not participate in discussions your friends have about those news (harder), or not shop on-line (hard), etc. The situation persists because on day-to-day basis, our need to use a particular product or service is greater than our discomfort with it.

[richardwhiuk]

Welcome to saying OK to every site. Not sure how you've improved things.