Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Show HN: Vaev – A browser engine built from scratch (It renders google.com)

    (github.com)
    233 points monax | 18 comments | 18 May 25 17:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.427s | source | bottom

    We’ve been working on Vaev, a minimal web browser engine built from scratch. It supports HTML/XHTML, the CSS cascade, @page rules for pagination, and print-to-PDF rendering. It even handles calc(), var(), and percentage units—and yes, it renders Google.com (mostly).

    This is an experimental project focused on learning and exploration. Networking is basic (http:// and file:// only), and grid layouts aren’t supported yet, but we’re making progress fast.

    We’d love your thoughts and feedback.

    Show context
    khimaros ◴[18 May 25 20:30 UTC] No.44024102[source]▶
    i find myself requesting this whenever i see a new minimalist browser pop up:

    it would be great to standardize alternative browsers on a consistent subset of web standards and document them so that "smolweb" enthusiasts can target that when building their websites and alternative browsers makers can target something useful without boiling the ocean

    i personally prefer this approach to brand new protocols like Gemini, because it retains backward compatibility with popular browsers while offering an off ramp.

    replies(7): >>44024337 #>>44024442 #>>44024575 #>>44024868 #>>44027725 #>>44036733 #>>44041548 #
    1. userbinator ◴[18 May 25 21:30 UTC] No.44024442[source]▶
    The subset could just be an older version of the spec, e.g. HTML 4.01 and CSS 2.1.

    (My opinion as another one who has been slowly working on my own browser engine.)

    replies(9): >>44024611 #>>44024625 #>>44024768 #>>44024884 #>>44025202 #>>44026019 #>>44027027 #>>44028487 #>>44028547 #
    2. ghayes ◴[18 May 25 22:00 UTC] No.44024611[source]▶
    I feel like some of the newer standards like CSS Grid instead of tables might be the best way to go. Many HTML/CSS improvements were not just bloat but actually better standards to build on.
    replies(3): >>44024807 #>>44024982 #>>44026920 #
    3. poisonborz ◴[18 May 25 22:03 UTC] No.44024625[source]▶
    That's easy to specify but contains a lot of bloat and unused features. A slimmer but more modern set would be useful.
    4. 5- ◴[18 May 25 22:29 UTC] No.44024768[source]▶
    > slowly working on my own browser engine

    care to tell us more?

    5. edoceo ◴[18 May 25 22:37 UTC] No.44024807[source]▶
    Right! Crazy fonts or cursors, not on smolweb (as another use put it) but Flex and Grid are almost necessary. There are loads of things that could be dropped (it feels like).

    I just want one of these browsers to give me a proper ComboBox (text, search and drop-down thing)

    6. robocat ◴[18 May 25 22:48 UTC] No.44024884[source]▶
    Pick a subset aimed directly at accessibility.

    The least-needed features are often accessibility nightmares (e.g. animation - although usually not semantic).

    The accessible subset could then be government standardized and used as a legal hammer against over-complex HTML sites.

    For a while search engines helped because they encouraged sites to focus on being more informative (html DOCUMENTS).

    I think web applications are a huge improvement over Windows applications, however dynamic HTML is a nightmare. Old school forms were usable.

    (edited to improve) Disclosure: wrote a js framework and SPA mid 00's (so I've been more on the problem side than the solution side).

    replies(1): >>44030991 #
    7. userbinator ◴[18 May 25 23:09 UTC] No.44024982[source]▶
    You still need to have tables.
    replies(2): >>44025158 #>>44031340 #
    8. dmd ◴[18 May 25 23:42 UTC] No.44025158{3}[source]▶
    And <marquee>, of course.
    9. stevage ◴[18 May 25 23:50 UTC] No.44025202[source]▶
    But older versions contain lots of crap we don't need (eg <blink> tags) and miss out on useful stuff (grid layout).
    10. Inviz ◴[19 May 25 02:17 UTC] No.44026019[source]▶
    Cat is out of the bag. nobody wants their CSS without flexbox anymore. It has to include that.
    replies(1): >>44031377 #
    11. shakna ◴[19 May 25 06:15 UTC] No.44026920[source]▶
    From accessibility background: Please stop using CSS for table data. It does not translate to my screenreader.
    replies(1): >>44026990 #
    12. notpushkin ◴[19 May 25 06:30 UTC] No.44026990{3}[source]▶
    Yes, but grids are everywhere in the UIs, not just the tables. In 2000-s, the problem was the opposite of what we have now: every interface was a table full of tables, because there was no other way to position things reliably.

    But now we have best of both worlds: use <table> for the actual tables, and CSS grid for UI layouts.

    13. sn0n ◴[19 May 25 06:38 UTC] No.44027027[source]▶
    Why not start with what is required for markdown formatting? Then build out from there.
    14. nulld3v ◴[19 May 25 11:07 UTC] No.44028487[source]▶
    Sounds kinda like DOM levels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Object_Model#Standard...

    Well, until everybody just gave up and declared it a "Living Standard".

    I think we do still need something like this, but I worry that basing it on versions of the spec is just repeating the same DOM levels mistake.

    15. GoblinSlayer ◴[19 May 25 11:18 UTC] No.44028547[source]▶
    Sites often get that wrong. I'd say support motherfuckingwebsite.com subset: <p>, <a>, <h*>, <img>, <ruby> (i.e. markdown/gemini++) and do everything else with webcompat/fixbrowser way.
    16. GoblinSlayer ◴[19 May 25 15:39 UTC] No.44030991[source]▶
    Styles can be provided as client-side dependencies instead of free form CSS:

       <meta name="dependencies" content="mathjax/1.1 highlightjs/2.0 navbar/5.1"/>
    then browser decides how to resolve them.
    17. WorldMaker ◴[19 May 25 16:09 UTC] No.44031340{3}[source]▶
    But the rendering engine might be easier to build with TABLE as a specialization of CSS Grid layout rendering rather than the slow real world work of CSS Grid being a generalization of TABLE rendering.
    18. WorldMaker ◴[19 May 25 16:13 UTC] No.44031377[source]▶
    Everything flexbox can do, CSS Grid can do, with easier/better/cleaner support for the second axis. At this point, I'd be interested in dropping flexbox entirely for CSS Grid.

    ("I don't need to worry about the second axis" seems to be a "not thinking fourth dimensionally enough" excuse to me today. You haven't considered enough responsive breakpoints or you haven't considered future features or future expanded data or future localizations, yet.)