Follow

Ok, I'm really curious how the folks stand towards the debate:

(boost welcome :) )

For those not knowing what this is all about:

is a protocol lighter than http, but heavier than . There's an RFC for adding favicons to this protocol, where you have a /favicon.txt file which just contains one emoji. Some people are against it, since it triggers requests that aren't user initiated.

Here's the RFC:
gemini://mozz.us/files/rfc_gem

btw, I am for the addition, so I'd be quite interested in the arguments against it...

@tobtobxx I think they're harmless, but I also admit they slightly go against the philosophy. If cracking down on favicons means preventing worse violations in the future then so be it.

@tobtobxx I gave it a look & have some respect for the people trying it or advocating for it, but it seems a bit of a folly: Since an equivalently lightweight page *can* be created with ordinary html markup (no new protocol or new ports required), the only effect is novelty and/or intentionally breaking functionality.

If the actual goal was promoting lightweight pages, the community *could* just define a subset of html that no compliant page would exceed, and browsers could be built for that.

@mindofjoe It's not just about HTML, but also about HTTP. (You can in fact serve text/html over the Gemini protocol).

The Gemini protocol has first class client certificate support, but aside from that is way easier, while still supporting some sort of user input.
(I don't like the 1024char limit, but that's a topic for another discussion.)

@tobtobxx HTTP does not have to be heavy; again, one *could* define "gemini-compliant" that specifies a sufficient subset of headers and markup. As for certs, there seems to just as much controversy there from gemini diehards asking if that's a benefit at all, specifically complaining that it's required, not optional.

I won't argue against people who want it, love it, or anything else -- only against the specific claims & stated objectives.

Maybe all posts should fit in a UDP packet... 😛

@mindofjoe @tobtobxx It can't be compatible, because if it was, people would just use heavy weight browsers and be done with it.

@albi @tobtobxx I think this is exactly right. It's not as novel as the lightweight webpage club or constructing webpages that are functional in lynx or similar terminal browsers -- so why not force the issue?

Of course, what is more heavyweight than a mastodon frontend client webpage where people go to tell everyone about the new gemini posts? 😛

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Fosstodon

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.