Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by imtringued on Monday July 06, 2020 @07:27AM
(#23746747)
I wonder what magic technology they use that makes Gemini servers more discoverable than a regular website. It certainly can't be a Gemini specific search engine because Gemini doesn't have a monopoly on search engines.
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by roca on Sunday July 05, 2020 @05:47AM
(#23737609)
You can constrain the features used by an HTML document using CSP headers. For example setting "img-src 'none'; style-src 'none'" will disable images and CSS styling. So this comment is wrong, basically.
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by tptacek on Saturday July 04, 2020 @06:13PM
(#23735283)
This doesn't make much sense. You can clearly demarcate it by replacing the "http" in the URL with "httpsubset" or something, and by running it on a separate port.
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by majewsky on Saturday July 04, 2020 @09:13PM
(#23735996)
At that point, what benefit is there to forcing yourself to use a subset of HTTP?
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by tptacek on Saturday July 04, 2020 @09:28PM
(#23736038)
See upthread.
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by rumanator on Saturday July 04, 2020 @02:00PM
(#23733843)
> would do almost nothing to create a clearly demarcated space where people can go to consume only that kind of content in only that kind of way.
That misses the fact that people don't want any of that; people just want to continue using the current infrastructure without functionalities that rely on a limited subset of features made available by the current infrastructure.
And that doesn't justify the effort of reinventing the wheel.
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by krapp on Saturday July 04, 2020 @02:34PM
(#23734049)
Clearly some people do want that, though, especially here. Evey week or so we have a thread about how terrible the modern web is and inevitably there's a subthread about how someone just needs to create an extremist, minimal fork of HTML with no CSS and no JS and create a new, hip web with blackjack and hookers.
I imagine the exclusivity of something like this is part of the appeal. They don't want to be part of the current infrastructure, they don't want to interact with it, or anyone on it.
Re:A look at the Gemini protocol: a brutally simple alternat...
by cycloptic on Saturday July 04, 2020 @01:08PM
(#23733539)
Nothing is keeping it as a demarcated space other than the same conventions that you would have to follow anyway if you followed a "minimal subset" approach. You could easily write a Gemini client that handles application/javascript. In fact if this protocol got any level of popularity, I would expect that to happen extremely quickly.
---
The problem is that deciding upon a strictly limited subset of HTTP and HTML, slapping a label on it and calling it a day would do almost nothing to create a clearly demarcated space where people can go to consume only that kind of content in only that kind of way. It's impossible to know in advance whether what's on the other side of a https:// URL will be within the subset or outside it. It's very tedious to verify that a website claiming to use only the subset actually does, as many of the features we want to avoid are invisible (but not harmless!) to the user. It's difficult or even impossible to deactivate support for all the unwanted features in mainstream browsers, so if somebody breaks the rules you'll pay the consequences. Writing a dumbed down web browser which gracefully ignores all the unwanted features is much harder than writing a Gemini client from scratch. Even if you did it, you'd have a very difficult time discovering the minuscle fraction of websites it could render.