...it would allow browser engines to become more simple, less to no maintanance... and many woupd be able to implement it easily, so no costs and no opportunity forr companies like mozilla or google or anyone to lock in users and monetize in the ways they do.

essentially saying the way we standardize the web is broken on a fundemantal level, which incentivizes for ever growing complexity and thus costs and causes all the downsides we love to complain about all day long

@serapath So here's a fun and perhaps non-obvious one: we can actually already do this ourselves.

One of the more interesting insights I've gathered from interacting with a lot of non-computer people, is that "using multiple browsers" is a surprisingly widespread practice.

Some people do it to keep accounts separate, some people do it because different things work a little better in different browsers, and so on. The reason doesn't really matter, the point is that having multiple browsers for different 'apps' is tolerable to a lot of people.

Which means that it'd be entirely possible to simply... not implement the whole spec. To establish a restricted set of "things a browser actually needs to function for real-world applications", and only implement those, and call it done. And if a specific app needs more, users can use another browser for it.

Especially if you can find a unique 'selling point', like being faster than established browsers, or some kind of special integration, this is a viable way to gain a foothold in the 'browser marketshare'!

The main insight here is that "what people need from a browser" and "what specs demand from a browser" are not the same thing and that allows us to redefine the playing field without having to convince any standards body, as long as we make sure that we get the "what people need" part right.