[NTLUG:Discuss] Javascript and CSS == Usable WWW browser? was Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] BrowseX (FAST, small browser) is outinBETA!!

[Chris Cox]

Kevin Brannen wrote:
> 
....
> I also agree with everyone else who wrote that lack of Javascript & CSS
> will hurt BrowseX's spread.  I know I won't bother looking at it for
> that reason.

I guess that means that text based browsing is completely dead.
I know that this may well start a long thread, but you have to realize
that a web page that is dependent upon Javascript for its functionality
is probably not going to work on a text only basis.... text only browsers
are still very useful and often used by people with disabilities.
Granted there might be some (but very few) instances where having Javascript
inside of a text browser might be useful... but hardly necessary.

> 
> Now if I can just find to time to get qmail working, then mutt (or
> something else like it), then I can evaluate browsers and lose
> Netscape(tm).  I hear the team who took Mozilla and removed all the junk
> but the browser come up with something good (I think it's called
> "galeon").

Oddly, seems many like the all-in-one (inspite of the bloat) package
that Netscape provides.  But people hate the idea of StarOffice
where browser+mail+office apps is blended.... I guess there's
some sort of magical boundary of bloat where people can no
longer tolerate it.  You may have a low tolerance level
for bloat... but Javascript is ok??

BrowseX doesn't have the "bloat-ware" of Javascript.... though
CSS is a step in the right direction, so I'll go for that
feature.  I find it hard to like Javascript AND also
CSS.  Seems the two concepts are contradictory.  One is an
attempt to centralize presentation and get it out of
HTML, the other concentrates on presentation dynamics interspersed
throughout HTML.

What's that special mix of features that a WWW browser has to
provide?  From what I've seen throughout the years, a WWW browser
must be one that is fully compatible with both Netscape and IE and
about 1/8th of their size.  I don't think anyone will be able
to agree on the "right" set of features that appeals to the
masses.... so we endure the "bloat" (where bloat means the
feature I don't need... remembering that MY bloat may be YOUR
necessary feature).

IMHO,
Chris