• Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    non-standard functionality of the latter.

    My guy. In the 90’s ALL browsers were non-standard. Even at the protocol level. http/0.9 - 1991
    http/1.0 - 1996
    http/1.1 - 1997

    html/1.0 - 1991 html/2.0 - 1995 revised in 1996, and 97. html/3.0 - 1997 html/4.0 - 1997 revised in 1998, 99, and 2000.

    Then comes all the add-ons like flash, shockwave, etc… Nothing was standard at this time-frame. We threw everything possible into browsers. Toolbars for literally everything (I remember even having winamp controls in my browser).

    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Evolution_of_HTTP

    Between 1991-1995, these were introduced with a try-and-see approach. A server and a browser would add a feature and see if it got traction.

    Literally sites and browsers would just implement stuff just to implement and see if it became used.

    A lot of recent times (2010’s mostly) has been back peddling the mad rush of just shoving EVERYTHING into browsers. Now I actually fear we’re going to far though… With google removing useful backend stuff for plugins and such. I just hope Firefox never follows suit.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Hokay.

      About try and see - I actually liked the way it was with HTML 4.0 , Macromedia Flash, no JS and no CSS.

      ADD:

      I remember a Shaman King fansite where I would watch all its episodes in Flash in atrocious quality.

      Would like to see something like Gemini, but with tables and other formatting being more customizable in the page, like it was back then. And a choice between a link that is just a link and a link that should be displayed inline if possible.