I found it hard to extract any signal from this extremely chatty site. But AFAICT the tagline "basically modernized Gopher" wouldn't be too far off the mark?
Project Gemini
141–150 of 194 posts
Re: Project Gemini
#142Maybe 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 m…
Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol.
As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.
Re: Project Gemini
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Images aren't prohibited. They are linked but can be shown.
Gemini users kind of have a meltdown if you try to implement any optional features. One browser implemented favicons and users were flaming the github issues demanding it be removed or they would implement IP blocks for any users requesting the favicon url. I tried to find the link but search results are drowned out by Google's Gemini.
[deleted]
Re: Project Gemini
#144Too many things are named Gemini
To be fair, I believe this protocol existed before Google’s thing, if I remember right.
Re: Project Gemini
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
And its simple implementation (client and server) comes from the simple protocol that doesn't seem to need much code to implement. The content seems to be in something similar to Markdown but fewer features. So if one wanted one could achieve the same with simple HTML over HTTP. My guess this is also a community thing.
I'm not sure that something like HTTP 1.1 is hard to implement. There are miriads of HTTP servers and clients. It has its quirks, for sure, but you can code basic implementation pretty easily. Now rendering HTML is completely another level of difficulty. If you ask me, I'd suggest to use Markdown instead of HTML for "simple web", but keep HTTP/1.1. Rendering Markdown is relatively simple and it's rich enough for a lo…
> Just provide canvas to draw and efficient API to implement draw operations. Application developers will use frameworks and frameworks prefer to draw everything themselves anyway.
This is terrible for accessibility, though.
Re: Project Gemini
#146Maybe 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 m…
If you reinvent something then people get to be a part of it. They get to help with implementation and maybe design. People like being a part of stuff.
Re: Project Gemini
#147Maybe 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 m…
Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol. As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.
The different experience is largely thanks to different content, not different protocol. The protocol just serves a gatekeeping role to keep the community small enough.
Re: Project Gemini
#148Maybe 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 m…
Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol. As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.
> download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself.
Well, I did, and I see "Expired Certificate - ... TLS certificate has expired" :(
Re: Project Gemini
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol. As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.
> download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. Well, I did, and I see "Expired Certificate - ... TLS certificate has expired" :(
For others: link for desktop downloads of Lagrange - https://git.skyjake.fi/gemini/lagrange/releases