3 ms·

That's all concerning the content though. If you don't want HTML and Javascript and video streaming and EPUBs on the web, you don't have to use them. None of th

That's all concerning the content though. If you don't want HTML and Javascript and video streaming and EPUBs on the web, you don't have to use them. None of that concerns HTTP itself, which is developed by IETF. You could fairly easily make your own web browser that uses HTTP and only reads (gem)text files and ignore the rest of the web. Or just use Lynx. Pushing your own standard seems to only add to the complexity of it all. Now if you want to make browser that can read all the text pages, you have implement HTTPS and Gemini.

dmitriid 5y ago
> That's all concerning the content though Ah yes. Just the content. Including things like WebUSB, WebHID, and a bunch of others. > You could fairly easily make your own web browser that uses HTTP and only reads (gem)text files and ignore the rest of the web. Yes, you probably could. And it wouldn't work with most of the web.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  You are again conflating HTTP and 'the web'. The stuff you are talking about for web browsers has nothing to do with the HTTP protocol. In fact, many many things use HTTP that are not part of `the web`. Most APIs these days are HTTP based, but do not exchange HTML or any web content.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > You are again conflating HTTP and 'the web' I'm not. It's you, who keep saying that the author's gripe is with HTML, content, HTTP and what not. It's not.
- mminer237 5y ago
  I still feel like that's better than Gemini, which doesn't work with any of the web. Text over HTTP: - Easy to write browsers - Viewable by those browsers - Can use other browsers - Viewable by everyone else - Can only see some other websites Text over Gemini: - Easy to write browsers - Viewable by those browsers - Cannot use other browsers - Not viewable by everyone else - Cannot see any other websites What's the advantage of Gemini again?

dmitriid 5y ago

> That's all concerning the content though Ah yes. Just the content. Including things like WebUSB, WebHID, and a bunch of others. > You could fairly easily make your own web browser that uses HTTP and only reads (gem)text files and ignore the rest of the web. Yes, you probably could. And it wouldn't work with most of the web.

cortesoft 5y ago
You are again conflating HTTP and 'the web'. The stuff you are talking about for web browsers has nothing to do with the HTTP protocol. In fact, many many things use HTTP that are not part of `the web`. Most APIs these days are HTTP based, but do not exchange HTML or any web content.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > You are again conflating HTTP and 'the web' I'm not. It's you, who keep saying that the author's gripe is with HTML, content, HTTP and what not. It's not.
mminer237 5y ago
I still feel like that's better than Gemini, which doesn't work with any of the web. Text over HTTP: - Easy to write browsers - Viewable by those browsers - Can use other browsers - Viewable by everyone else - Can only see some other websites Text over Gemini: - Easy to write browsers - Viewable by those browsers - Cannot use other browsers - Not viewable by everyone else - Cannot see any other websites What's the advantage of Gemini again?