Mastodawn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_v2_vTogS8

Kevin Karhan

Dec 14

@Viss @jplebreton agreed...

The amount of #Bloatware is just absurd these days.

In fact, I hate #JavaScript because all it does in shove #Malware like #CryptoJacking, #Tracking and #AdblockerBlockers onto my devices and fucks with #accessibility by discriminating against my #browser choice!

What we need is a #LightWeightWeb that refuses all that #Bloat and #Junk.

Something that delivers #accessible, #private and functional #Internet again, without "#AIslop", #ads and tracking.

Something like #FrogFind by @ActionRetro, but instead of a #WebProxy just good #Websites that provide said information without demanding literal megabytes in bloat!

I Built a Search Engine... for Vintage Computers!

YouTube

Simon Brooke Mar 3, 2025

@neil Have a wee look at my #LightWeightWeb proposal. If I can get even just a small working group around it, I think something useful can be built.

https://www.journeyman.cc/blog/posts-output/2025-02-24-light-weight-web/

Light Weight Web

This essay is likely to be revised, probably several times. It is tracked on archive.org, so that you'll be able to go back through versions. I'm not promising to do serious work on this proposal by myself, but if others are interested I think it may be worth pushing forward with.

The Fool on the Hill

@sheephorse @craignicol @mc so it may be that you could not buy things from Etsy or EBay or your favourite web store with a #LightWeightWeb browser because of this restriction, and that consequently you'd need to transfer to a full-fat browser to do so. I don't see that as a reason for relaxing this restriction, since switching to a full fat browser will remain possible -- but it is a conscious choice which the user has to make.

@craignicol My view is that the user's contract is with one host, and that any resource fetched from a different host is a violation of that contract; so separate host for (e.g.) API would be a violation.

I think that has to be so, because otherwise it would be easy to CNAME `api.my.domain` to (e.g.) `googleapis.com`, which would drive a coach and horses through tracking protection.

https://www.journeyman.cc/blog/posts-output/2025-02-24-light-weight-web/

@mc

My apologies! The #LightWeightWeb proposal is here:

Light Weight Web

The Fool on the Hill

I'd prefer replies to votes at this stage, but here's a poll:

one cookie, no name

four cookies, names from 'well known' set

four cookies, twelve byte names

four cookies, eight character names

Poll ended at Mar 2, 2025 at 11:13am.

I'm inclined to discard option ii because it would privilege the language(s) in which the set of names were written; I'm inclined to discard option iii because it privileges languages written in the Roman alphabet. I'm willing to listen to arguments about why I'm wrong.

I'm also willing to listen to alternative proposals, such as allowing additional cookies/larger storage for the duration of an active session.

/continued

In all cases the 'at most 30 days; still applies.

In all cases, names are stored within the 'total storage'; the actual value storage I intend is not more than 1024 bytes in any case.

/continued

Options:

i. one cookie, up to 256 bytes value;
ii. up to four cookies, names chosen from a small 'well known' set, up to 1072 bytes total storage;
iii. up to four cookies, names UTF8, up to twelve bytes, up to 1072 bytes total storage;
iv. up to four cookies, names UTF, up to eight characters, up to 1152 total storage but each name character counted as 32 bits;