We should have Markdown-rendered websites
Markdown is a convenient but deeply limited markup language  with only a small subset of html&#x27;s features. And yes, limitations are good because we want documents not web apps, etc, etc, but I mean &quot;images can&#x27;t have captions&quot; limited, &quot;navigation bars don&#x27;t exist&quot; limited. Actual important features of html don&#x27;t exist in markdown, which is why almost every markdown platform ends up adding extensions and shortcodes. Why use markdown at all? Just use html.<p>&quot;But html isn&#x27;t style-agnostic&quot; yes it is. <i>CSS</i> isn&#x27;t style-agnostic. Instead of a markdown browser, how about a browser with a fixed stylesheet and no js? You don&#x27;t even need a browser for that, that could just be a userscript that gets plugged into an existing browser. It&#x27;d break non-compliant websites that require javascript or custom css, but so would a markdown browser. Most people wouldn&#x27;t write content for it, but most people wouldn&#x27;t write content for a markdown browser either.<p>&quot;But html is cluttered&quot; it doesn&#x27;t have to be. This is a valid webpage:<p><pre><code>    &lt;!doctype html&gt;
    &lt;title&gt;Page Title&lt;&#x2F;title&gt;
    &lt;h1&gt;Page Title&lt;&#x2F;h1&gt;

    &lt;p&gt;Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
    Ut ac lorem ut massa euismod vestibulum.

    &lt;p&gt;Nullam rutrum blandit eleifend. Aenean a varius diam.
    Morbi sodales velit nunc, vel vestibulum lorem tempus sodales.
</code></pre>
Personally, I prefer writing in markdown, but that&#x27;s no reason to insert a markdown renderer into browsers. HTML can already be as sleek and readable as you want. If we added a new type of markup for anybody with a personal preference, we&#x27;d never stop.