8 ms·

I do not buy it. Just use gemini:// rather than https:// https:// to refer to that specific subset of https + html. Maybe also add a header to the server respon

I do not buy it. Just use gemini:// rather than https:// https:// to refer to that specific subset of https + html. Maybe also add a header to the server response that says x-gemini: true or whatever. > It's difficult or even impossible to deactivate support for all the unwanted features in mainstream browsers Just do not use mainstream browsers then. Make your own like you do for gemini. They address it a bit later with: > Writing a dumbed down web browser which gracefully ignores all the unwanted features is much harder than writing a Gemini client from scratch And I will disagree on this part, http 1.0 is actually easier to implement than the gemini protocol. > Even if you did it, you'd have a very difficult time discovering the minuscule fraction of websites it could render. Except gemini browsers render even less websites right now. It seems to me that the gemini developers can't really think outside the box. This is further proven by their dependence on things like TCP, TLS, and DNS.

rakoo 6y ago
gemini isn't trying to reinvent the web, to make it P2P or serverless or whatever; it's just reusing the ideas of gopher and the web but going in another direction. It doesn't try to replace the web. From this point of view it makes total sense to reuse TCP, TLS and DNS, because they're not trying to replace them. > Maybe also add a header to the server response that says x-gemini: true or whatever. That would require adding headers, which means extension is possible, and that's explicitely something gemini doesn't want. I believe it makes sense in the goals gemini wants to achieve. > And I will disagree on this part, http 1.0 is actually easier to implement than the gemini protocol. HTTP 1.0 still has multiple headers and multiple verbs. It's actually closer to HTTP 0.9. Yes, you can say "don't use those" but at some point it's good to refresh the spec and see what is and what isn't needed. Moreover HTTP is just HTTP, Gemini is transfer + encryption + client identification (through client certificates); the latter is still the wild west for the HTTP world, there is no clear set of "best practices" in this domain
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  > gemini isn't trying to reinvent the web > It doesn't try to replace the web This is what they claim, yes. > From this point of view it makes total sense to reuse TCP, TLS and DNS, because they're not trying to replace them I do not understand this point. Wanting to replace the web is irrelevant to using better and simpler protocols. > That would require adding headers Treat any server that contains extra headers as invalid gemini then. > which means extension is possible Extension is possible regardless, even on gemini. I can set my mime to text/gemini-2 and add all kinds of stuff in it. > Moreover HTTP is just HTTP, Gemini is transfer + encryption + client identification HTTP might just be HTTP, https however..
  - rakoo 6y ago
    > This is what they claim, yes. No it is not. See the FAQ again at https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html: > 1.4 Do you really think you can replace the web? > Not for a minute! Nor does anybody involved with Gemini want to destroy Gopherspace. Gemini is not intended to replace either Gopher or the web, but to co-exist peacefully alongside them as one more option which people can freely choose to use if it suits them. In the same way that many people currently serve the same content via gopher and the web, people will be able to "bihost" or "trihost" content on whichever combination of protocols they think offer the best match to their technical, philosophical and aesthetic requirements and those of their intended audience. For the other point you seem to forget that gemini doesn't exist on technical grounds but on philosophical grounds: it wants to create a new space with its own rules, even though the technicalities are close to something that already exist. People have written blogs (called gemlogs in gemini), and they "hacked" the format to build an informal replacement to Atom. The constraints of the medium created the requirements and the result is a simple, human-readable and human-editable document that can replace Atom in most cases: https://proxy.flounder.online/gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/companion/subscription.gmi https://proxy.flounder.online/gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/.... It follows the philosophy of making this new space more human-centered.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      By "This is what they claim, yes." I meant that they claim that they are not trying to replace the web, not that they claim that they try to replace it.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Every Gemini post on HN has an inevitable post like this. Gemini developers want to keep things inside of a box that can't be bulldozed by corporate interests. I love it. I just wish Gemini browsers would optionally inline media and video links, but I'd be surprised if that doesn't happen before too long.
- spwhitton 6y ago
  One of the two main web-to-Gemini proxies can already do this and the gmi2email script I wrote does it too. I think other clients probably can too.
- marshal_mellow 6y ago
  Theres a gemini browser called lagrange that has inline images/audio
  - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
    Yep, just tried LaGrange. I think I like it better than GemiNaut but it's good there are multiple clients and choices. :)
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  Please no inline links whatsoever ever in Gemini.
  - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
    What I meant I guess was displaying images and video inline on a graphical browser instead of on a new page or browser instance. Looks like LaGrange already does that at least for images. Yeah, I really like the links being on distinct lines. I don't know why, but it's refreshing. I think it also encourages a document writer to actually provide details about the link and definitely gives the user agent an opportunity to display the destination and be clear about what is happening.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
I wrote http and xml parsers and I bet text drawing, layout, scrolling and ui are much more difficult.

rakoo 6y ago

gemini isn't trying to reinvent the web, to make it P2P or serverless or whatever; it's just reusing the ideas of gopher and the web but going in another direction. It doesn't try to replace the web. From this point of view it makes total sense to reuse TCP, TLS and DNS, because they're not trying to replace them. > Maybe also add a header to the server response that says x-gemini: true or whatever. That would require adding headers, which means extension is possible, and that's explicitely something gemini doesn't want. I believe it makes sense in the goals gemini wants to achieve. > And I will disagree on this part, http 1.0 is actually easier to implement than the gemini protocol. HTTP 1.0 still has multiple headers and multiple verbs. It's actually closer to HTTP 0.9. Yes, you can say "don't use those" but at some point it's good to refresh the spec and see what is and what isn't needed. Moreover HTTP is just HTTP, Gemini is transfer + encryption + client identification (through client certificates); the latter is still the wild west for the HTTP world, there is no clear set of "best practices" in this domain

h_anna_h 6y ago
> gemini isn't trying to reinvent the web > It doesn't try to replace the web This is what they claim, yes. > From this point of view it makes total sense to reuse TCP, TLS and DNS, because they're not trying to replace them I do not understand this point. Wanting to replace the web is irrelevant to using better and simpler protocols. > That would require adding headers Treat any server that contains extra headers as invalid gemini then. > which means extension is possible Extension is possible regardless, even on gemini. I can set my mime to text/gemini-2 and add all kinds of stuff in it. > Moreover HTTP is just HTTP, Gemini is transfer + encryption + client identification HTTP might just be HTTP, https however..
- rakoo 6y ago
  > This is what they claim, yes. No it is not. See the FAQ again at https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html: > 1.4 Do you really think you can replace the web? > Not for a minute! Nor does anybody involved with Gemini want to destroy Gopherspace. Gemini is not intended to replace either Gopher or the web, but to co-exist peacefully alongside them as one more option which people can freely choose to use if it suits them. In the same way that many people currently serve the same content via gopher and the web, people will be able to "bihost" or "trihost" content on whichever combination of protocols they think offer the best match to their technical, philosophical and aesthetic requirements and those of their intended audience. For the other point you seem to forget that gemini doesn't exist on technical grounds but on philosophical grounds: it wants to create a new space with its own rules, even though the technicalities are close to something that already exist. People have written blogs (called gemlogs in gemini), and they "hacked" the format to build an informal replacement to Atom. The constraints of the medium created the requirements and the result is a simple, human-readable and human-editable document that can replace Atom in most cases: https://proxy.flounder.online/gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/companion/subscription.gmi https://proxy.flounder.online/gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/.... It follows the philosophy of making this new space more human-centered.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    By "This is what they claim, yes." I meant that they claim that they are not trying to replace the web, not that they claim that they try to replace it.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

Every Gemini post on HN has an inevitable post like this. Gemini developers want to keep things inside of a box that can't be bulldozed by corporate interests. I love it. I just wish Gemini browsers would optionally inline media and video links, but I'd be surprised if that doesn't happen before too long.

spwhitton 6y ago
One of the two main web-to-Gemini proxies can already do this and the gmi2email script I wrote does it too. I think other clients probably can too.
marshal_mellow 6y ago
Theres a gemini browser called lagrange that has inline images/audio
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  Yep, just tried LaGrange. I think I like it better than GemiNaut but it's good there are multiple clients and choices. :)
betwixthewires 6y ago
Please no inline links whatsoever ever in Gemini.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  What I meant I guess was displaying images and video inline on a graphical browser instead of on a new page or browser instance. Looks like LaGrange already does that at least for images. Yeah, I really like the links being on distinct lines. I don't know why, but it's refreshing. I think it also encourages a document writer to actually provide details about the link and definitely gives the user agent an opportunity to display the destination and be clear about what is happening.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

I wrote http and xml parsers and I bet text drawing, layout, scrolling and ui are much more difficult.