Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Open Web Docs

opencollective.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#51

Post by deweller »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #40
input_sh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a small Coil, who you've probably never heard of before, donated 40% of Google's/Microsoft's amount ($100k). That's pennies to Google/Microsoft. For Coil.com on the other hand... For the unaware, Coil is a subscription service that you pay a certain amount to, and that amount gets spread through websites you visit that have a WebMonetization tag in the element: Pretty cool initiative. My personal website earned a…

I've come across this before. In order to receive money, I should just be able to put: Or similar, on my website. Doesn't work that way though. I have to sign up with somebody like coil.com and put an address they give me on my websites. This is just worse. Much much worse than it needs to be.

This is a dream that the lightning network aims to one day fulfill.

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#52

Post by derangedHorse »

rini17 wrote: post #43
arrayjumper wrote: post #4

Wow, was checking out the transactions at https://opencollective.com/open-web-docs/transactions?offset... and I see that Google and Microsoft have collectively contributed $500k. Happy to see that there is corporate sponsorship for this. Gives me some hope that this will allow MDN to outlast any eventuality that might befall Mozilla.

Not much to be happy about here. The "Living standard" ensures that independent browser implementation from scratch is impossible. Even not from scratch, see MS Edge.

How does the standard disallow independent browser implementations?

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#53

Post by piamancini »

gnomewascool wrote: post #33
franciscop wrote: post #30

It retracts from the credibility of a documentation platform that the blog post announcing it makes one of the most basic mistakes of writing text online; line length should be kept to 60-80 characters to make it readable. It can be stretched a bit up to 100 chars depending on font-size, line-height, etc, but this blog post features a whooping 163!

> that the blog post announcing it makes one of the most basic mistakes of writing text online Your comment is a valid criticism of the Open Collective website (if you at all feel like it, please send it directly to them — see the bottom of the webpage), but it's not the fault of the "Open Web Docs" project. They probably have little more influence on the design of the website than somebody using indiegogo, patreon o…

Hi - Pia from Open Collective here. Thanks for the ping on this. We deployed a quick fix to reduce the width and we'll look at it with more time.

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#54

Post by piamancini »

franciscop wrote: post #30

It retracts from the credibility of a documentation platform that the blog post announcing it makes one of the most basic mistakes of writing text online; line length should be kept to 60-80 characters to make it readable. It can be stretched a bit up to 100 chars depending on font-size, line-height, etc, but this blog post features a whooping 163!

Hi Francisco - Pia from Open Collective here. Thanks for the ping on this. We deployed a quick fix to reduce the width and we'll look at it with more time.

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#55

Post by 3395810 »

deweller wrote: post #51
mike-cardwell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come across this before. In order to receive money, I should just be able to put: Or similar, on my website. Doesn't work that way though. I have to sign up with somebody like coil.com and put an address they give me on my websites. This is just worse. Much much worse than it needs to be.

This is a dream that the lightning network aims to one day fulfill.

What is the idea here? Open a channel with each website that I visit. Lockup the BTC that I will ever send them but only send it to them slowly each time I visit it.

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#56

Post by jefftk »

rini17 wrote: post #43
arrayjumper wrote: post #4

Wow, was checking out the transactions at https://opencollective.com/open-web-docs/transactions?offset... and I see that Google and Microsoft have collectively contributed $500k. Happy to see that there is corporate sponsorship for this. Gives me some hope that this will allow MDN to outlast any eventuality that might befall Mozilla.

Not much to be happy about here. The "Living standard" ensures that independent browser implementation from scratch is impossible. Even not from scratch, see MS Edge.

Impossible? Tell that to Flow: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2020/01/new_browser...

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#57

Post by thinkmassive »

3395810 wrote: post #55
deweller wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a dream that the lightning network aims to one day fulfill.

What is the idea here? Open a channel with each website that I visit. Lockup the BTC that I will ever send them but only send it to them slowly each time I visit it.

Why wouldn’t you open a single channel with a well-connected routing node, and use it for all your payments?

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#58

Post by franciscop »

piamancini wrote: post #54
franciscop wrote: post #30

It retracts from the credibility of a documentation platform that the blog post announcing it makes one of the most basic mistakes of writing text online; line length should be kept to 60-80 characters to make it readable. It can be stretched a bit up to 100 chars depending on font-size, line-height, etc, but this blog post features a whooping 163!

Hi Francisco - Pia from Open Collective here. Thanks for the ping on this. We deployed a quick fix to reduce the width and we'll look at it with more time.

That's much better and more readable! Thanks for the super-quick fix!

Re: Introducing Open Web Docs

#59

Post by mike-cardwell »

ahopebailie wrote: post #45
mike-cardwell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come across this before. In order to receive money, I should just be able to put: Or similar, on my website. Doesn't work that way though. I have to sign up with somebody like coil.com and put an address they give me on my websites. This is just worse. Much much worse than it needs to be.

That's where the idea started but that means the user has to be able to send Bitcoin. The purpose of Interledger is to abstract away that issue which is why Web Monetization is built on Interledger. You don't have to sign up with Coil to earn. There are other wallets that are on the Interledger network such as Uphold and Gatehub that can give you a payment pointer to put into your site's HTML. If you want your earnin…

I understand that the person paying probably needs an account somewhere, so that payments can be batched together to reduce transaction fees.

However, there's no reason for me to have an account anywhere in order to receive bitcoin. All I need is a bitcoin address.

I don't want to sign up with Coil, Interledger, Uphold, Gatehub, or any other random third party, in order to receive bitcoin. And there is zero reason why I would have to.

Post reply on HN