On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:17 AM Omar Polo <op at omarpolo.com> wrote: - we have TLS because it's fundamental to guarantee confidentiality > between servers and clients > I personally don't give a damn about this (after all, who's going to pass confidential information over Gemini? See below.), but I accept that other people do. - we have status codes, because a page that says "an error occurred" > or "certificate required" cannot be interpreted correctly otherwise > They aren't actually part of the required protocol engine, except for 1x vs. 2x. The META for the others is just human-readable content, and could be replaced by a 2x document, and some other mechanism could be found for the marginal case of 1x. (Clients might exploit 6x to automatically retry with a (different) cert, but it's unclear that this is the Right Thing: the protocol document is, as usual, ambiguous, as it says "should be retried" but not who should retry it.) > - we have pre-formatted blocks to allow certain types of > explanations/presentations that otherwise would have been impossible > (how do we teach how to write text/gemini in text/gemini?) > It's still hard to explain ``` within ```: you can talk about it but you can't show an example. Anyway, I don't care about any of these points, just that "necessary" is in the eye of the beholder. - the one adding the line-type =: (or whatever): you have to parse the > whole document to extract the metadata True, but that's true for any approach except metadata-at-the-top. Note that ^^^ within ``` does not mark metadata, so you have to parse at least that much. and it allows for possibly unreadable text/gemini files[1] > ????? ???'? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????. _O_ver _there_/ _O_ver _there_ /_Send_ the _word, _Send_ the _word_ / _to_ pre _pare_. [PRETEND THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS IN ITALICS] [READ THE WORDS IN ANY ORDER DESIRED] ad pulcritudinem tria requiruntur, integritas, consonantia, claritas. There's no problem creating Gemini text that's hard to read. T????????????????h???????????????i????????????s???????? ????????????????i???????????????s????????????? ?????????????g?????????????????????l????????????????????????i????????????t? ?????????c???????????????h??????????????????????????y?????????????????? ???????????????t??????????????????????e????????????????????????x??????????? ??t????????????????????????? ??????????????????a???????????t?????????????????? ???????????????????????l?????????????????????e??????????????v?????????????? ????????????e????????l???????????? ???????1???????????????? ?????c??????????????r?????????????????????a????????????z???????????????i??? ?????????????????n???????????????????e??????????s?????s??????????????.?????????????????? you probably will have trouble here Workers at the Tower of Babel: "Bitte geben Sie mir einen kleineren Schraubenschl?ssel.' 'Non ho idea di quello che stai chiedendo.? ???????? ????? ??? ? ?????.? ?Kei te korero koe i tito noa, ko ahau ngenge o te whare pourewa.' There. A perfectly valid text/gemini or indeed text/plain document, and yet quite unintelligible, and it would be trivial to make it far worse. The question is, what is the _motive_ for writing and serving such rubbish? Web pages lie to search engines because money. Web pages contain hidden text because money. Web pages plant tracking pixels because money. The love of money is the root of all Web evil. But where's the money in Gemini? I mean, you could put textual ads in your pages and a link to a website, but why not just use the website? An user on a non-sophisticate client cannot (easily) understand > that. It's just full of bloat. > Again, you'd have to be a fool to write something like your example or mine except for hack value. Reasonable people would either put metadata at the bottom of the document or the most important entries at the top and less important ones at the bottom; it's the possibility of doing that, along with allowing links-with-metadata, that make me want it to be able to go anywhere. Gemini is like (anarchist) Anarres: everything is open to everyone's . The Web has become like (capitalist) Urras: there is lots of glitz on top, but the important stuff is hidden in the cellars, where people are bleeding to death. Repeating myself: metadata conventions should go in a metadata spec, *not* in the text/gemini spec, since neither clients nor servers are required to take any notice of them. What I think is missing in all these discussions is a valid reason to > outweight the cons. > Lars explained that much better than I could. Also, look up cataloging-in-publication, which basically puts metadata on the copyright page of every published book. That way it stays with the book. However, I feel that denying and turning down feature requests for > addition is not a good thing. I think we should reflect on what's the > actual problem and solve it, because this smells like a XY problem[2] to > me. > "If you want PL/I, you know where to find it." --Dennis Ritchie (PL/I was notoriously a bloated language by the standards of its time: by today's standards, not so much.) If we want to give people ways to manage their local data, maybe because > they want to search across documents or do some kind of publications > over Gemini, then centralising metadata in one place is an option. > Out-of-band markup is fine, except that it tends to get lost as content is passed around, reduced reused recycled. Sure, I can stick a > description of "About the interpretation of the Will of power in > Nietzsche" with tags "philosophy, nietzsche, will-to-power" and a > category of "essay", but you cannot trust me to talk about those > arguments in the page, maybe it only contains link to pics of cute > kittens :) > Do that enough and people will simply ignore you. It's a funny-once joke. > Why I think metadata will make things like GUS worst? While full-text > search is not without its drawbacks, as Bortzmeyer reminded us, people > will abuse the metadata to "go up" in the search results, > Why would a geminaut want to "go up"? We are already in orbit. On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:41 AM Omar Polo <op at omarpolo.com> wrote: but then I would have to convince this list, people who write content > and people who write clients and tools to recognise the -~ line type and > cope with that. I don't think it will gain traction, so... > I agree: social pressure is probably enough here. But scripts make clients
---
Previous in thread (86 of 99): 🗣️ Petite Abeille (petite.abeille (a) gmail.com)
Next in thread (88 of 99): 🗣️ John Cowan (cowan (a) ccil.org)