First of all, remove this retarded idea of anything else than text/images being handled. That includes videos and pdf; just give us a mailcap config file (w3m does it).
How do we stop Javascript
David Lopez
Dylan Diaz
Actually while we're at it can we deprecate the entire .pdf file format completely? That shit is responsible for so much legacy-support-bloat it's insane.
Adrian Phillips
Nice
One suggestion for number two:
The web browser shall render non animated images.
One suggestion for number three:
The web browser shall not under any circumstance execute code and scripts.
This
It has nothing to do with the web so sorry.
PDF isn't all bad has long has you stay with the standard but it's still useless imo.
Kevin Walker
No more no less is needed.
Caleb King
Don't use a negative in your standard. It's implied anything that's not mentioned isn't allowed. The first 2 are enough.
Videos are something you watch one at a time but gifs are not. They should be treated the same as images.
Camden Taylor
Agreed. Videos should be played offline in a video player. If you need a preview, then people should provide a smaller sample video, or a series of thumbnails. Same with audio lest we get idiots using tags like the did with midis in the 90s.
PDF makes no sense in 2017, so yes, it needs to go. One of the newer open standards should be used. Any of them since they're all better than PDF.
We need a standard that allows us to font and color settings we desire, this would also help with accessibility, so that's an added bonus.
But really like said, it's not part of the web, so it's outside the scope. I still agree that we should get rid of PDF.
I agree. That way we get to use the media players we want. Flash should have always been it's own offline application, not something added poorly to browsers. Dynamic animation is unnecessary and should be reserved for videos, so that works too.
Unnecessary. Games should be developed for the platform you are using, not emulated in a web browser. There are engines today that make cross platform development piss easy.
I'm torn with GIFs/APNGs myself. Technically they're video without audio, but if we allow them, people will start adding other things because "Oh well it's just like a gif". I think discussion is needed.
Jason Lopez
Negative's are allowed in the rfc2119
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
tools.ietf.org
I suggest tho that we stick to the rfc2119.
Julian Robinson
Same
Well first we need to define what is a video/animation/image.
-Video:
A video requires a certain amount of images cadenced a certain speed + sound.
This is absolutely necessary in a browser and should be reserved for video players.
-Animation:
An animation is a certain amount of images cadenced a certain speed (minimum of 24fps).
-Image:
A single picture/photo.
Video can analyses be discarded because we have all the tools to read them but animations like GIFs/APNGs are really popular and basically one of the first things that was asked to be added to the W3C standard.
The border between video/animation is very thin but I think it should be rendered externally and not in the browser.
Kevin White
I'm eternally grateful that Holla Forums doesn't decide what goes into the internet.
Connor Williams
install Links