No, it is terrible that "they" continue to extend and "improve" HTML.
This is the reason it seems impossible for an independent web browser to be created and maintained: because what should be a simple and predictable spec over the last twenty years is a rapidly moving target that takes significant resources just to track.
We could have ten different open-source web browsers (like Konqueror) if we weren't cramming the HTML spec full of bloat that nobody wants and that we all install extensions to disable anyway ...
I’m pretty sure this is the only goal. Everyone with a neuron or two can see that the internet doesn’t use web tech and abstracts it away as soon as possible. These people just grow their corporate security by adding nonsensical bullshit that makes zero difference irl.
Sane competition, developers and end users would benefit from competition. This is just corporate lock-in. When a user is required to install Chrome for using a web app we're failing him as a platform, and the open web goes off the rail
Having a browser written entirely (or mostly) in a memory safe language.
LadyBird is now using some Swift, but most of the code is still C++. The browser, while extremely impressive (and I’m very thankful it exists), has a ways to go before it’s a true replacement for Chromium/Blink, Firefox/Gecko or Safari/WebKit, and rewriting all the existing code in Swift would be a massive undertaking.
Chromium and Firefox also use some Rust, but re-writing those browsers entirely in it would be an even larger undertaking.
In contrast, a simpler browser spec would make it far easier to create a brand new browser in a memory safe language. Not only would this massively improve security on all operating systems as the browser is a huge vector for exploits, it’d also allow for the creation of new, more secure operating systems. Currently, arguably the biggest blocker for using something like RedoxOS (an OS written in Rust) is that it doesn’t have a web browser that can actually work for a lot of the web. But if the web browser spec were simpler, it’d be much easier to create one and then use that OS.
Obviously we can’t go back in time and make a simpler web-spec, and removing features is a terrible idea as it’d break existing websites. I do think, though, that it’s fair to think very hard before adding new features. I think a complete feature freeze would be overkill — some new features could legitimately make web development simpler and cleaner for many webdevs. I do think there needs to be some thought as to what the end-goal for web browsers is. Is there one? Or will we forever continue to add new features at the current pace? If so, the hopes of building a new, more secure browser are dim. And personally I’d prefer a more secure browser to one with more features.
As a comparison, C++ has been adding plenty of new features, but nearly no devs are aware of the full feature set, and despite the goal of making things simpler, I think many devs are as lost as ever with it, as they still have to interface with code written in old and different manners. On the web dev side, some JS and CSS features do legitimately simplify development and make things easier, but I think it’s fair to say that’s not the case for all new features added.
This is the reason it seems impossible for an independent web browser to be created and maintained: because what should be a simple and predictable spec over the last twenty years is a rapidly moving target that takes significant resources just to track.
We could have ten different open-source web browsers (like Konqueror) if we weren't cramming the HTML spec full of bloat that nobody wants and that we all install extensions to disable anyway ...