Nope, he wrote "The Hunchback of Notre Dame".Hugo is just a static file server.
Nope, he wrote "The Hunchback of Notre Dame".Hugo is just a static file server.
What extra "code" is this, that has to be downloaded? I have to admit that I still don't understand why a phone's web page browser cannot be called a "web browser." A laptop browser is not the same thing as a desktop browser, but we still call it a web browser. What, again, makes the phone device so special?I thought that the point of this thread was to separate data from display. Take, for example, the weather forecast - the data may come from largely the same source, but may look very different depending on how it's delivered/received on the device. A phone browser is not the same thing as a desktop browser. Similar in functionality, but not the same thing. On a phone, you have the option to use a default weather app supplied by the phone manufacturer or a browser bookmark.
A native phone app will only request the data, receive it over HTTPS, and then use the phone's processing power to display it nicely. A browser has to also download the code to display the data, and phone browsers are generally designed to avoid that to the extent practical.
HTML, images, CSS, Javascript - the web page that surrounds the raw data. The rendering instructions.What extra "code" is this, that has to be downloaded?
Sure, HTML, CSS, and JS are "code" -- i.e., computer languages, interpreted by web browsers. I've been writing in these languages for years. But isn't it still true that "phone browsers" also interpret and execute the same languages? How else would they render our web pages? Forgive my thick-headedness, but I must be missing some kind of semantic fine point in this whole argument. It just doesn't make sense to me.HTML, images, CSS, Javascript - the web page that surrounds the raw data. The rendering instructions.
Suppose you can argue if HTML and CSS are "code".
The app will download the raw data and use local code/resources to display it.
Some (many?) apps are very thin wrappers over a web browser so won't be that much different.
I was replying specifically to the bit from astyle:Sure, HTML, CSS, and JS are "code" -- i.e., computer languages, interpreted by web browsers. I've been writing in these languages for years. But isn't it still true that "phone browsers" also interpret and execute the same languages? How else would they render our web pages? Forgive my thick-headedness, but I must be missing some kind of semantic fine point in this whole argument. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Edited to clarify: Again, why is it that a phone's web page browser cannot be called a "web browser?" What is it that puts it in a separate class by itself from the browsers used by larger computers?
I always considered HTML and CSS "markup languages" because they don't compile into an executable program. They only define parameters.
Afaik, browsers on the phone are the same code as on the desktop though I've never thought about it before now.
The browser downloads, for reading a newspaper I read, many megabytes for only displaying an article whose symbols make few hundreds of bytes.HTML, images, CSS, Javascript - the web page that surrounds the raw data. The rendering instructions.
But the design of web pages for the phone is completely different as for the PC. And this design is being imposed everywhere. Even if only the display is the difference, the effect is immense.Afaik, browsers on the phone are the same code as on the desktop though I've never thought about it before now.
When not in "desktop mode", phone browsers tend to render sites in non-standard ways. Often damaging the look or requiring specific babysitting in the form of media tags.I have to admit that I still don't understand why a phone's web page browser cannot be called a "web browser."
In the 90s the page content that had to be delivered to Netscape's browsers was quite different than that delivered to Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, but they were both still called "web browsers." I considered those display quirk differences to be much more technically burdensome than the formatting differences needed to display web content on a smaller sized display screen. Even in the 21st century I've had to do some browser sniffing in order to deal with different vendors' web browsers. Whereas Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari have been fairly standards-compliant, Microsoft's browsers continue to be problematic, and in some ways the Edge browser is even more of a pain than Internet Explorer.The browser downloads, for reading a newspaper I read, many megabytes for only displaying an article whose symbols make few hundreds of bytes.
But the design of web pages for the phone is completely different as for the PC. And this design is being imposed everywhere. Even if only the display is the difference, the effect is immense.
My argument is that the "development" is bringing the web browser and WWW to an end, you are concentrating too much on technical issues, so that you ignore the big picture.Whereas Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari have been fairly standards-compliant, Microsoft's browsers continue to be problematic,
My argument is that the "development" is bringing the web browser and WWW to an end, you are concentrating too much on technical issues, so that you ignore the big picture.
And yes, it is a question of standards. That is what www and gopher made, a standard, before them, we had to login with telnet to different servers designed by each information giver. Now we are using different apps in the phone for things that were done with www.
There are for example jet "new banks " that offer online banking only on their phone apps, not anymore in the browser.
phone browsers tend to render sites in non-standard ways. Often damaging the look or requiring specific babysitting in the form of media tags.
There's a proliferation of rendering engines - there's Gecko by Mozilla, chromium by Google (and forked by Microsoft for Edge)... oh, and WebKit for Apple's Safari... and they all kind of need to take advantage of the underlying hardware. Standards help, but we still gotta keep up with the ever-evolving hardware and security issues.So if I open i.e an IRC client and pointed it towards a website, port 80 and it just displays a mess on the screen. Is that still a web browser?
yeah, and the browsers will be tasked with downloading and running that truckload every single friggin' time... because everybody wants to do it their way, rather than let someone else (IETF, W3C, etc) call the shotsVery soon most web pages will have 5 nested Linux kernels in VMs.
But the deteriorating quality of Web-Sites is in large scale. The proliferation of Apps that take the work of the browser and WWW also. Perhaps we get soon such apps for Windows and Mac, eventually some apps also for linux, but for no other OS. And with the apps no web sites more for such services, like the new banks.I don't foresee such things happening on any large scale, at least, not in my lifetime.
Such apps are already here: Maple/Mathematica/Matlab, Quicken, enterprise accounting apps, JMP, misc/orange3, devel/RStudio, and more... heck, even /bin/sh making use of /bin/fetchBut the deteriorating quality of Web-Sites is in large scale. The proliferation of Apps that take the work of the browser and WWW also. Perhaps we get soon such apps for Windows and Mac, eventually some apps also for linux, but for no other OS. And with the apps no web sites more for such services, like the new banks.
Have you got any examples of what you mean by this?Also, a phone's browser is pretty different from a desktop/laptop - due to size and processing power...
Did some research, and got surprising results:Have you got any examples of what you mean by this?
It is a potato computer and performs as such...It is a wonderful nettop, small, light, with an integrated modem that works without problem with OpenBSD and supports many frequencies. The only thing that makes problems are now web browsers. Why should a web browser be inflated to be like a virtual machine with own OS?
Hugo was president of Venezuela until his death around 2013.I never used it but there is "hugo"
I do it the W3C way...... because everybody wants to do it their way, rather than let someone else (IETF, W3C, etc) call the shots
Curious as to what the download size is for Mac OS. My file: /var/cache/pkg/firefox-107.0_2,2.pkg is only about 59 MB. I'm thinking Microsoft's Firefox download is small because they are only downloading a wrapper that goes around their own internal web browsing software. At least, that's the way it was with Internet Explorer before Edge came along.The desktop installer is about a 40-50 MB app that downloads close to 400 MB... and www/firefox tarball is close to 500 MB... that is in line with my experience... but over 1 GB for Android was a surprise... My guess is that the Android app contains rendering code that gets downloaded on demand by the desktop version...
Did some research, and got surprising results: [...]
The desktop installer is about a 40-50 MB app that downloads close to 400 MB... and www/firefox tarball is close to 500 MB... that is in line with my experience... but over 1 GB for Android was a surprise...
My guess is that the Android app contains rendering code that gets downloaded on demand by the desktop version...