3 ms·

The CSS and JS isn't really that relavent in this context. TLS adds some overhead but probably insignificant in context. HTTP (any version) is a fine protocol.

The CSS and JS isn't really that relavent in this context. TLS adds some overhead but probably insignificant in context. HTTP (any version) is a fine protocol. HTML is a very simple format if all you want is a list. All of these things are reasonable choices that are probably more robust than the other random things you mentioned. None of this really matters though, people should use whatever they want. My main point was mostly just that contrary to what the person i was responding to implied, self-hosting static content is a totally reasonable thing to do and a very easy thing to performance optimize (basically just do nothing). An actually self-hosted static site (apache + html, css, js) would have probably stood up to the hn hug of death. > I had also invented "hashed:" URI scheme "Invent" is a strong word given magnet: links have been around forever.

zzo38computer 2y ago
Yes, if you only want a list, you can use the <OL> and <LI> commands of HTML and not much else should be needed. HTTP and HTML will still work, although not the only possibility. I agree that self-hosting static content is a reasonable thing to do, and would be a good idea. However, reducing the number of files and file sizes still makes it more efficient, and so does using simpler server software (which is possible for HTTP, although it can be even more simpler with some other protocols if the server software is also simpler). > magnet: links have been around forever. I know about magnet: URI scheme, although mine is somewhat simpler (it is not intended to do everything that magnet: does), but also allows relative URLs (although supporting this involves things other than the usual URL format), and does not require URL encoding, and has some other differences. (Unlike the magnet: scheme, it is not intended to use with BitTorrent; it is intended for documents like other URI schemes are.) ("Forever" is a strong word; magnet: scheme was invented in 2002, according to Wikipedia.)

zzo38computer 2y ago

Yes, if you only want a list, you can use the <OL> and <LI> commands of HTML and not much else should be needed. HTTP and HTML will still work, although not the only possibility. I agree that self-hosting static content is a reasonable thing to do, and would be a good idea. However, reducing the number of files and file sizes still makes it more efficient, and so does using simpler server software (which is possible for HTTP, although it can be even more simpler with some other protocols if the server software is also simpler). > magnet: links have been around forever. I know about magnet: URI scheme, although mine is somewhat simpler (it is not intended to do everything that magnet: does), but also allows relative URLs (although supporting this involves things other than the usual URL format), and does not require URL encoding, and has some other differences. (Unlike the magnet: scheme, it is not intended to use with BitTorrent; it is intended for documents like other URI schemes are.) ("Forever" is a strong word; magnet: scheme was invented in 2002, according to Wikipedia.)