Re: "HTML Lite" - I think there's already a pretty solid solution. Hand-coded HTML 3 without any CSS, ECMAScript, or other dynamic elements. That always worked pretty well for me, and pages that could load acceptably on 28.8 would be absolutely mind-blowingly fast now. Of course, that would put the power of web design back in the hands of the average user rather than exclusively designers and devs. Because of that, I don't think we'll ever see that becoming an option again.
Or, based on the browser I use when I care about speed, can we design pages around the constraints of Lynx/Links/eLinks? The CSS layouts work when called for, menus work in text-mode, but without images, *.js, and all the other Web annoyances, everything loads quick even on the worst connections.
The concept of HTML Lite is about restrictions that the source is forced to live within. As with AMP, it would not be an honor system. It would not be something that maybe that random link would conform to, but way more likely it wouldn't.
If I were looking for song lyrics, or a recipe, or schedule information, etc, I would be browsing in HTML Lite mode. I don't want popovers, subscribe now boxes, animated bullshit, etc.
My root post is sitting in the negatives right now, and I own that and embrace it because it is how discussions about AMP always go on HN. A bunch of web developers herd in to tell us how terrible AMP is while the web gets more and more bloated, more and more destructive and tragedy of the commons, and we all layer on various shoehorned, half-assed solutions to fight back (e.g. Ad blockers, nuisance blockers, tracking blockers, etc).
Well, I'll say this much about AMP and how it is: I actively avoid it; but then again, I don't use GMail, I search with DDG or Exalead most of the time, etc. I like the idea, I hate the implementation. I don't like a single corporation determining the course of the Web. I like the idea of a constrained standard. Then again, I also like the unrealistic idea of a single monolithic standard. When I got into making webpages, you had HTML and that was it. Then they said, "well, if you want to do some cool stuff, use CSS in addition to HTML". And now, they're trying to make it so that creating a website without using CSS or JS is completely impossible.
Really, what you're saying you want just links back to what I suggested - disable remote CSS (preferably also inline but that's a pipe-dream), disable JavaScript, disable images, and turn your content blocker on full blast. Either that or just use Links. It works for me and blocks all the crud so I can get the content I actually want. The only thing I'd like to do with Links is to change the terminal colors it uses (which I don't think I can do in Windows - if you know how please do tell me). HTML was a fine language for what it does, and it still serves as a very solid core for a Web made of pure content. Only a Web made up of utter corporate nonsense needs scripting.
Or, based on the browser I use when I care about speed, can we design pages around the constraints of Lynx/Links/eLinks? The CSS layouts work when called for, menus work in text-mode, but without images, *.js, and all the other Web annoyances, everything loads quick even on the worst connections.