On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 12:49, Ali Fardan <raiz at stellarbound.space> wrote: > > If so many people are not satisfied with the protocol as is without an > insane amount of features, why don't you move to a different protocol > that satisfies your needs? Or rather, define your own, the only reason > I'm interested in the Gemini protocol in the first place is the lack of > features, yet ever since I joined this community the majority of > discussion is all about feature proposals, why don't we get creative > with what we have? > I assume the majority of people who suggest a feature want "gemini + X", but everyone has their own idea of what X is :) If everyone built their own protocol instead, almost all of those would be doomed from the get-go. To get traction a potential new protocol needs to be appealing to as many as possible -- and the creator needs to *reach out* to as many as possible at that! The most sold pie in the US is apple pie. It's pretty much nobody's favourite, but it's virtually everyone's second-favourite. The fact that so many feature proposals drop in suggests that Gemini has done mostly everything right and appeals to a whole truckload of people. It's a good thing, and it doesn't mean people *aren't* getting creative with what they have (see https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/mozz.us/files/rfc_gemini_favicon.gmi for example). The lack of content-size or hash is by no means a deal-breaker for me; I'll find other ways to reduce bandwidth usage for my use case if need be. But that doesn't mean it *wouldn't be useful*, for my use case or others'. > > Petite Abeille have suggested the use of message/external-body MIME > type defined in RFC 1873 for such thing, and I know this looks like an > ugly solution, Guess what? so is adding content length to response > headers, the protocol was designed to make it impossible to do such > thing, lets keep it that way. And by the way, you could outsource > certain operations to external protocols if you really need that, > gemtext allows a clean way of specifying links to different protocol > schemes by design. > Well, if all I want is gemini + X, then using protocol Y with its bloat of features I *don't* need is less tempting than sending a feature proposal to the gemini ML. And again, that's a good thing! It means people are engaging and shaping the trajectory of their own internet future. A rejected proposal is a hundred times better than one that was never discussed for fear of ridicule or social repercussions. The community is alive and vibrant :D Cheers, ew0k -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201103/d1c1 bb61/attachment.htm>
---
Previous in thread (34 of 48): 🗣️ Ali Fardan (raiz (a) stellarbound.space)
Next in thread (36 of 48): 🗣️ Petite Abeille (petite.abeille (a) gmail.com)