[andrewstuart]

>> I think it's more excitement about the idea that it is possible to write a web browser from scratch

Depends on your definition of “a web browser”.

It’s not possible to clone Firefox or Chrome without huge huge resources and time and effort.

It is probably possible to make something like a web browser from 20 years ago.

[zamadatix]

I think Ladybird has already surpassed that mark. Maybe not in 100% of attributes, technically modern Chrome/Firefox don't even meet that mark, but it's also already gone well beyond in most of them. This including that they are doing everything in house from the image decoding to the font rendering (well, on Serenity - for other platforms like Linux/macOS they have QT bridge their implementation to existing stacks).

Still a long ways to go to be a Chrome/Firefox for sure but that it's already beyond what you suppose might be possible is just the point of why it's its own kind of excitement.

[_heimdall]

That might be true, but if that's where we've found ourselves it seems like the best course of action is to start over with a fresh web spec focused on staying as simple as possible.

Browsers have never had a sustainable revenue model. If we're at a point where building one is so complex that it requires a massive resource investment we're setup to eventually be left with only one or two highly centralized and controlled browsers. That defeats the whole purpose of the web.

[asadotzler]

maybe, but it absolutely won't happen, so why bother suggesting it?

[_heimdall]

Why won't it happen? If everyone agrees that what we have isn't right and will only get worse, are we supposed to march down that path anyway?

[persolb]

I think it’s mostly the ‘everybody agree’ part. There are millions worth of years of effort pit into today’s webpages.

A more likely successful path is to standardize markdown links, and just let browsers start showing markdown natively. Throw in a simple optional style sheet for good measure.