Project Gemini

(geminiprotocol.net)

327 points andsoitis | 1 comments | 17 Nov 25 15:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.194s | source

Show context

userbinator ◴[18 Nov 25 04:26 UTC] No.45961391[source]▶

Maybe this is just me showing my age, but I don't understand why reinvent everything when you could just go back to something like HTML 2.0 or even 3.2 with some minor changes. I probably hate what happened with the "modern web" as much as the Gemini developers, but going full NIH is unlikely to be a good solution when there's an existing "unmodern web" to develop for, and as a bonus, can be experienced even with a modern browser.

Never underestimate interoperability.

replies(6): >>45961518 #>>45961852 #>>45962392 #>>45962596 #>>45964678 #>>45970721 #

6P58r3MXJSLi ◴[18 Nov 25 08:10 UTC] No.45962596[source]▶

>>45961391 #

HTML 2.0 and NOSCRIPT are very hard to enforce both server and client side.

replies(1): >>45963127 #

1. ktpsns ◴[18 Nov 25 09:40 UTC] No.45963127[source]▶

>>45962596 #

Are they? On client side, technically it is easier not to execute scripts then to do so (despite the UX of https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/ might let you think the opposite). Technically, with DOM inspection one can also easily filter out elements you don't like, both on client and server side. It is literally one XQuery/XPath away.

The problem is that most modern "apps" stop working once you prevent them from exchanging data with third parties or using nowadays-standard APIs such as XHR or Websockets. This is why a radical cut was chosen by Gemini.

↑