I just made this topic from w3m right now. I think it's a very good browser.
I wonder why text based browsers never took off? This is pretty usable!

It's not really surface web for anyone, either people only know what "Brave", "Firefox" or the infamous Chinese-spyware Opera-GX browser.

ie works fine on here with the new layout

Normal faggots will never stop needing more. They will constantly consume no matter what you do. If you give them something they'll always find a way to want to consume something more than that with absolutely zero regard for quality.

Text browsers FTW

you can't change the theme on dillo

posting from links :-)

>>1948
why does w3m feel like a step back from web standards when most of it is still html5 compliant?

>>4578
links are just files with metadata. why would anyone assume they're interactive if not set up for it?

The point isn't so much that w3m isn't HTML5 compliant, which it is, it's just that a lot of web stuff that works in most browsers today don't even need to be HTML5 to run. Like, that list of interactive links in Links or Lynx, it's a system that's been around since the late 90s, it's still in use, and it's not some flashy new tech. You're used to thinking everything's got to have a flashy layer, but some things are just simple and work fine.

It's like the whole "USB-C" hype now, most of the time a connector that just moves stuff around without a whole "standard" of rules, but yeah, the idea that everything's got to

my 190k-mile truck handles w3m fine, still runs with a little more juice than it should but the screen's got some scratches on it from a couple of falls. nah, don't get me wrong about dillo, just figured I'd mention it had some quirks when I first tried it.

Why does the thread treat "links" as if they are necessarily interactive just because w3m renders HTML5? In many cases, links were designed for static pages before modern web standards.