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

Project Gemini

geminiprotocol.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Project Gemini

#171

Post by tormeh »

zzo38computer wrote: post #101
rzzzt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are clients permitted/expected/tolerated to run off and fetch the contents of image links for inline display, once a page containing such links is retrieved?

Only if the page is inside of a ZIP archive stored on the local computer and only if the link is to a picture within the same ZIP archive. (However, it would be good to have an option to disable inline display even in that case.)

This would be my preferred way of document distribution. Images and video is allowed, but they have to be part of the same document as the text. Everything is in the same zstd'd tarball. No separate roundtrips for fetching images. Either you download the document or you don't. Would be cool with some limitations on overall document size as well.

Re: Project Gemini

#172

Post by projektfu »

userbinator wrote: post #140

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 m…

The advantage of a separate protocol is that you know that every available site will be limited. If you use a search engine, it will give you a result your limited browser can read. If you use an old or limited web browser (Dillo, e.g.), then you will still have the problem of discovery of Smolweb content.

Re: Project Gemini

#173

Post by mattlondon »

prmoustache wrote: post #121
mattlondon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah they missed an opportunity to more fully support something more like markdown that offered in-line links and basic text formatting. Missing tables is also quite the deal breaker for a bunch of things. But yeah it seems like these lack of features is a willful and highly-opinionated approach to what the author of the protocol wants to take a stance on (their excuse is ease of implementation for clients, but I thi…

The thing is, while I agree we could just make decent and frugal websites, gemini not being based on html is a feature. It allows us separate both worlds. When I open lagrange (a gemini client) and click on a gemini link from any gemini capsule (site), I am confident it will open something similar. If I am opening a website, even a good frugal one made in HTML without js and click on an https link, I can't be sure if…

Gemtext can be full of ads too.

HTML 4 without JavaScript would go a long way to combat a lot of that. If you use the Gemini protocol to deliver it then you don't have to worry about cookies either. You could even prevent cross-site requests to avoid 1x1 pixels etc.

Re: Project Gemini

#174

Post by troupo »

cantalopes wrote: post #166
troupo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing nothing wrong. Even gemini users realise that inline images are good actually.

Like "they are good". Whole html with its features is "good", but when i want to use a privacy- first protocol, why the hell would i undermine it with tracking pixels, especially since it noted as the very feature of this protocol

Ah yes. The main feature of images is tracking pixels. And not, you know, images.

Re: Project Gemini

#175

Post by Y_Y »

nine_k wrote: post #90
astrange wrote: post #82

> Project Gemini I have a theory that the idea you'd call your project "Project X" comes from TV shows. We work with project codenames and we don't call anything Project X. We just call it X. It feels like adding the word "Project" is something a screenwriter would do to make the dialogue clearer.

I would say that it comes from the military, where projects are given codenames that try hard to be opaque random monikers, and spill no beans about the nature of the project. The Manhattan Project predates mass TV, and most of it did not happen on Manhattan.

> Tube Alloys

Re: Project Gemini

#176

Post by shiomiru »

vbezhenar wrote: post #99
barbazoo wrote: post #96

Earlier 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…

> Rendering Markdown is relatively simple

Markdown is a superset of HTML, so your assertion cannot be true. But even an HTML-less subset is very hard to parse efficiently (or, at all) because of the various grammatical ambiguities. And then there's the various competing definitions...

Re: Project Gemini

#177

Post by el3ctron »

as a recent gemini user i like that clean looks, amazing fast page loading if compares with http web, low stimulation feedback, that makes me feel more concentrated and allow me to be less distracted while reading contents. There is a good browser options, graphical but that lovely terminal and hyper-fast ones.

In a world full of marketing/publishers psychopaths, Gemini protocol is a hope and part of human resistance.

Re: Project Gemini

#178

Post by voxic11 »

cantalopes wrote: post #166
troupo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing nothing wrong. Even gemini users realise that inline images are good actually.

Like "they are good". Whole html with its features is "good", but when i want to use a privacy- first protocol, why the hell would i undermine it with tracking pixels, especially since it noted as the very feature of this protocol

There are plenty of ways to implement images without allowing for tracking pixels. Only allowing images to be served from first party domains would be a simple one.

Re: Project Gemini

#179

Post by Godisone48 »

sun is not doing Allah is doing to accept Islam say that i bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad peace be upon him is his slave and messenger

Re: Project Gemini

#180

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

netdevphoenix wrote: post #164
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a pile of projects lying around with good names? Coming up with a good one is hard and getting harder every day.

There is no such thing as a good name. A name is good or not only in relation to the reasons why you want that name. Different teams, orgs, etc have different reasons to name systems. Traditionally, tech names have been in English or English sounding bisyllabic mostly (Game Boy, Windows, Office, Adobe, XBox) with PlayStation being unusually long for a name competing in the anglosphere. But examples like the Bard to G…

Oh I see. When you said:

> Why do programmers have so little imagination when it comes to names?

I assumed that you had a better than average method that you could share. But I guess you answered your own question:

> There is no such thing as a good name.

Post reply on HN