Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The problem is convining anyone to write a website in this

Could choose a subset that lets certain sites that do not get on everybody's nerves still run fine.

For the remainder, people who need it can run an extension that runs a Chromium converting what's possible to the target subset.



Do you want to support YouTube? You want to support YouTube, don't you? Any big FAANG site probably uses most of the possible features.


> You want to support YouTube, don't you?

Of course no. You can use a bloated browser for that.


Then nobody will ever use your browser. Simple as that.


I think people forget the early 2000s. Many sites only worked on IE but Firefox was the better browser. Firefox users had an extension that would open certain links in IE or open the current page in IE via the context menu.

If a lightweight browser could be significantly faster and more secure, people would tolerate using two browsers again. Although Ladybird hasn't reached that bar.

YouTube certainly could use a small set of web standards, although YT regularly breaks on Firefox. It's a video player with links and forms.


> YT regularly breaks on Firefox

Source? I've never had a single problem ever, and I don't know anyone else that has either.



YouTube has a vested interest to work best on Chrome.


It doesn't need to be mainstream, that will probably ruin it anyways.


So long as I can query the site for videos of interest and spin them up under mpv or VLC we're tots fine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: