Over the last decade-plus web standards have become over-saturated to the priority of commercial interests.

To maintain a web browser to any kind of quality assurance and security you need a well funded team - or rely on one in your dependency tree.

Money rarely comes without strings attached and, on every page load, you can feel that tension between the pure philosophical vision and expected returns.

Perhaps the time has come to reassess what a web browser should be.

To revive an old thought:

There was a time in the early 2000s when Firefox triggered a browser renascence and there was a lot of excitement about what a "browser" could be...feeds, blogging integration, collective tagging, open comments....

The original spirit that the web should be as writable as it was readable, extended to shareable.

And in some way, shaped by economics and technology, we got an approximation of that vision..shrinkwraped and sanitized.

I often think about the visions put forth by browsers like Amaya and, much later Flock.

That a browser should be a tool for creation as much as consumption.

I think probably the best place to start would be to build a rendering engine that can support basic rss/atom feeds and a bare bones micropub client.

i.e. something minimally useful that covers both creation and consumption.

Soon after that you would probably want to start thinking about an extendable architecture to support activity pub variants, custom creation flows as well as taking small bites at rendering linked documents.