123 ms·

I am the author of the document. KyuWeb is intended to be incredibly simple.

rglullis 5y ago
I meant in relation to the "original web" creator. I don't think at any point in time TBL's just went on to say "oh, HTTP and HTML are set in stone and no more use-cases are going to be added or promoted". The protocol was not designed to satisfy some subjective notion of "incredibly simple", it was made to satisfy the possible use-cases within the constraints of the time. Which leads me to ask you: why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"?
- Cyberdog 5y ago
  > I meant in relation to the "original web" creator. Okay, my mistake. I do think simplicity was a goal for Sir Tim, though. Check out this old Usenet post introducing the "WorldWideWeb" (emphasis mine): https://groups.google.com/g/comp.archives/c/CfsHlSNYPUI/m/DTs60INnuzcJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.archives/c/CfsHlSNYPUI/m/DT... > A simple protocol ("HTTP") is used to allow a browser program to request a keyword search by a remote information server.… > Making a web is as simple as writing a few SGML files which point to your existing data.… -- > Which leads me to ask you: why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"? I think the phrase "should be" bothers me here. I just had an idea and I'm gonna try to implement it. Most likely I will be the only person to do so, but if someone else thinks it's a good idea, they can implement it too if they wish, and that would be cool. I'm sure many people who are interested in KyuWeb's goals will read my proposal and my arguments in this thread and still decide that Gopher, Gemini, or the modern web is still the better route to take, and that's fine.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > I do think simplicity was a goal for Sir Tim Saying that your design allows people to do things in a "simple" way is not the same as saying that the protocol is meant to be deploy only in the limited use-cases. > I just had an idea and I'm gonna try to implement it. You are (implicitly) asking people to conform to your design, though. Or would you continue working on it even if you were the sole user?
    - Cyberdog 5y ago
      > You are (implicitly) asking people to conform to your design, though. Or would you continue working on it even if you were the sole user? When you put it that way… certainly these sorts of projects are more rewarding and validating if other people find them as useful as I do, yes. I'd consider it a success beyond all expectation if KyuWeb saw even the modest usage numbers of Gemini, but even a fraction of that would be very motivating. So let me try again at answering your question. > why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"? Because I think there is a hole in the "market" for a system of interlinked hypertext documents which is just that and nothing more, and I think KyuWeb is a way to fill that hole in a manner that balances usefulness and ease of implementation better than the alternatives. But yes, others are free to disagree or offer their own solutions. :)
      - rglullis 5y ago
        > Because I think there is a hole in the "market" for a system of interlinked hypertext documents which is just that and nothing more Ok, so what? Why is it so important for you that the system does "just that and nothing more"? - There is nothing stopping you in the existing web to create the documents according to whatever limitations that you would like to have. - There is nothing stopping you to filter/transform whatever documents you receive from outside to fit your liking. - If "resource usage" is a problem for you, go ahead and browse the web using lynx. Bonus points, you'd still be able to browse the existing "document-oriented" web without forcing other people to conform to your limitations of KyuWeb. - Even micro-controllers that cost pennies on the dollar have enough resources to run a basic http client. Your proposal does not make anything more accessible/affordable. Don't take it personally, but this is the type of project that I really wish never gets any traction. This type of ascetic mentality seems to be rooted in good intentions but always carries some totalitarian undertone that bothers me. It's okay to be a minimalist by filtering out things on your side, but it's actually harmful when this minimalism becomes a forced doctrine. I'm all for trying to have tools that filter the complexity of the existing web, but I do not want to cripple it because some of its usages affect my sensibilities.

I meant in relation to the "original web" creator. I don't think at any point in time TBL's just went on to say "oh, HTTP and HTML are set in stone and no more use-cases are going to be added or promoted". The protocol was not designed to satisfy some subjective notion of "incredibly simple", it was made to satisfy the possible use-cases within the constraints of the time. Which leads me to ask you: why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"?

Cyberdog 5y ago
> I meant in relation to the "original web" creator. Okay, my mistake. I do think simplicity was a goal for Sir Tim, though. Check out this old Usenet post introducing the "WorldWideWeb" (emphasis mine): https://groups.google.com/g/comp.archives/c/CfsHlSNYPUI/m/DTs60INnuzcJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.archives/c/CfsHlSNYPUI/m/DT... > A simple protocol ("HTTP") is used to allow a browser program to request a keyword search by a remote information server.… > Making a web is as simple as writing a few SGML files which point to your existing data.… -- > Which leads me to ask you: why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"? I think the phrase "should be" bothers me here. I just had an idea and I'm gonna try to implement it. Most likely I will be the only person to do so, but if someone else thinks it's a good idea, they can implement it too if they wish, and that would be cool. I'm sure many people who are interested in KyuWeb's goals will read my proposal and my arguments in this thread and still decide that Gopher, Gemini, or the modern web is still the better route to take, and that's fine.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > I do think simplicity was a goal for Sir Tim Saying that your design allows people to do things in a "simple" way is not the same as saying that the protocol is meant to be deploy only in the limited use-cases. > I just had an idea and I'm gonna try to implement it. You are (implicitly) asking people to conform to your design, though. Or would you continue working on it even if you were the sole user?
  - Cyberdog 5y ago
    > You are (implicitly) asking people to conform to your design, though. Or would you continue working on it even if you were the sole user? When you put it that way… certainly these sorts of projects are more rewarding and validating if other people find them as useful as I do, yes. I'd consider it a success beyond all expectation if KyuWeb saw even the modest usage numbers of Gemini, but even a fraction of that would be very motivating. So let me try again at answering your question. > why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"? Because I think there is a hole in the "market" for a system of interlinked hypertext documents which is just that and nothing more, and I think KyuWeb is a way to fill that hole in a manner that balances usefulness and ease of implementation better than the alternatives. But yes, others are free to disagree or offer their own solutions. :)
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > Because I think there is a hole in the "market" for a system of interlinked hypertext documents which is just that and nothing more Ok, so what? Why is it so important for you that the system does "just that and nothing more"? - There is nothing stopping you in the existing web to create the documents according to whatever limitations that you would like to have. - There is nothing stopping you to filter/transform whatever documents you receive from outside to fit your liking. - If "resource usage" is a problem for you, go ahead and browse the web using lynx. Bonus points, you'd still be able to browse the existing "document-oriented" web without forcing other people to conform to your limitations of KyuWeb. - Even micro-controllers that cost pennies on the dollar have enough resources to run a basic http client. Your proposal does not make anything more accessible/affordable. Don't take it personally, but this is the type of project that I really wish never gets any traction. This type of ascetic mentality seems to be rooted in good intentions but always carries some totalitarian undertone that bothers me. It's okay to be a minimalist by filtering out things on your side, but it's actually harmful when this minimalism becomes a forced doctrine. I'm all for trying to have tools that filter the complexity of the existing web, but I do not want to cripple it because some of its usages affect my sensibilities.