4 ms·

Well said. The problem with the Gemini protocol and its proponents is that they are trying to push a protocol (if you can call it that) which makes no sense whe

Well said. The problem with the Gemini protocol and its proponents is that they are trying to push a protocol (if you can call it that) which makes no sense when what they want to achieve can be achieved much more easily using an alternate approach. This is like pushing for stone cart wheels when spoked wheels are already available. For instance, if the issue is with the use of cookies, all they need to implement is a mechanism for the server to not respond to cookies in any form. If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind.

naasking 6y ago
> If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind. They did. That's the Gemini protocol. I recommend reading the spec to properly understand the constraints they were trying to meet.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  Gemeni is a subset of HTTP?! I thought it was similar to HTTP, like Gopher. Could you link to the relevant docs?
  - naasking 6y ago
    It very closely resembles HTTP 0.9. It's pretty much a single line protocol, like "GET [URL]crlf" over TLS, and that's it.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      That's not what subset means though.
- harikb 6y ago
  With a text like this, you can’t blame the readers assuming incompatibility and losing interest > Now, what does Gemini currently have to offer? The best way to find out is to head over to the official site: gemini.circumlunar.space in your Gemini browser.
- pkphilip 6y ago
  The Gemini protocol throws away a huge number of advances - in effect throwing the baby out with the bath water. Gemini protocol could have been a subset of HTTP and the document format could have been a subset of HTML. For instance, if you decide to not implement cookies, javascript etc but if you retain the ability to have formatting for texts, tables, images etc it would have been sufficient. And even in the case of images, the protocol could have mandated that images cannot be accessed cross-site. The same restrictions could have been placed on other aspects such as the style sheets.
rpdillon 6y ago
The FAQ has a section on this (https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html) --- 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:// 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.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  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.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > 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.
  - krapp 6y ago
    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.

naasking 6y ago

> If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind. They did. That's the Gemini protocol. I recommend reading the spec to properly understand the constraints they were trying to meet.

jhardy54 6y ago
Gemeni is a subset of HTTP?! I thought it was similar to HTTP, like Gopher. Could you link to the relevant docs?
- naasking 6y ago
  It very closely resembles HTTP 0.9. It's pretty much a single line protocol, like "GET [URL]crlf" over TLS, and that's it.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    That's not what subset means though.
harikb 6y ago
With a text like this, you can’t blame the readers assuming incompatibility and losing interest > Now, what does Gemini currently have to offer? The best way to find out is to head over to the official site: gemini.circumlunar.space in your Gemini browser.
pkphilip 6y ago
The Gemini protocol throws away a huge number of advances - in effect throwing the baby out with the bath water. Gemini protocol could have been a subset of HTTP and the document format could have been a subset of HTML. For instance, if you decide to not implement cookies, javascript etc but if you retain the ability to have formatting for texts, tables, images etc it would have been sufficient. And even in the case of images, the protocol could have mandated that images cannot be accessed cross-site. The same restrictions could have been placed on other aspects such as the style sheets.

rpdillon 6y ago

The FAQ has a section on this (https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html) --- 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:// 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.

cycloptic 6y ago
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.
rumanator 6y ago
> 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.
- krapp 6y ago
  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.