It seems that some people look at the designs from the past and think "oh, whatever the designer came up with was the true final form of the idea" when in reality it was just that what they came up with was to deal with the constraints they were dealing with (costs, time, resource, etc).
I don't think at any point in time TBL's just went on to say "oh, HTTP and HTML are set in stone and no more use-cases are going to be added or promoted". The protocol was not designed to satisfy some subjective notion of "incredibly simple", it was made to satisfy the possible use-cases within the constraints of the time.
Which leads me to ask you: why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"?
Okay, my mistake. I do think simplicity was a goal for Sir Tim, though. Check out this old Usenet post introducing the "WorldWideWeb" (emphasis mine): https://groups.google.com/g/comp.archives/c/CfsHlSNYPUI/m/DT...
> A simple protocol ("HTTP") is used to allow a browser program to request a keyword search by a remote information server.…
> Making a web is as simple as writing a few SGML files which point to your existing data.…
--
> Which leads me to ask you: why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"?
I think the phrase "should be" bothers me here. I just had an idea and I'm gonna try to implement it. Most likely I will be the only person to do so, but if someone else thinks it's a good idea, they can implement it too if they wish, and that would be cool. I'm sure many people who are interested in KyuWeb's goals will read my proposal and my arguments in this thread and still decide that Gopher, Gemini, or the modern web is still the better route to take, and that's fine.
Saying that your design allows people to do things in a "simple" way is not the same as saying that the protocol is meant to be deploy only in the limited use-cases.
> I just had an idea and I'm gonna try to implement it.
You are (implicitly) asking people to conform to your design, though. Or would you continue working on it even if you were the sole user?
When you put it that way… certainly these sorts of projects are more rewarding and validating if other people find them as useful as I do, yes. I'd consider it a success beyond all expectation if KyuWeb saw even the modest usage numbers of Gemini, but even a fraction of that would be very motivating. So let me try again at answering your question.
> why do you think that you believe that other people should be limiting themselves to what basically amounts to your idea of "incredibly simple"?
Because I think there is a hole in the "market" for a system of interlinked hypertext documents which is just that and nothing more, and I think KyuWeb is a way to fill that hole in a manner that balances usefulness and ease of implementation better than the alternatives.
But yes, others are free to disagree or offer their own solutions. :)
Ok, so what? Why is it so important for you that the system does "just that and nothing more"?
- There is nothing stopping you in the existing web to create the documents according to whatever limitations that you would like to have.
- There is nothing stopping you to filter/transform whatever documents you receive from outside to fit your liking.
- If "resource usage" is a problem for you, go ahead and browse the web using lynx. Bonus points, you'd still be able to browse the existing "document-oriented" web without forcing other people to conform to your limitations of KyuWeb.
- Even micro-controllers that cost pennies on the dollar have enough resources to run a basic http client. Your proposal does not make anything more accessible/affordable.
Don't take it personally, but this is the type of project that I really wish never gets any traction. This type of ascetic mentality seems to be rooted in good intentions but always carries some totalitarian undertone that bothers me.
It's okay to be a minimalist by filtering out things on your side, but it's actually harmful when this minimalism becomes a forced doctrine. I'm all for trying to have tools that filter the complexity of the existing web, but I do not want to cripple it because some of its usages affect my sensibilities.
Using an alternative protocol is completely optional for you as a user so I don't think calling it a forced doctrine is accurate. These kinds of protocols are great for people who want to have an experience of browsing a web of documents knowing that they won't be giving up privacy or be bombarded with interactive attention grabbing graphical elements, advertisements, videos etc. If that experience is not something you value, you can obviously choose not to use it.
> I'm all for trying to have tools that filter the complexity of the existing web, but I do not want to cripple it because some of its usages affect my sensibilities.
Filtering the modern web is not easy. Just try browsing with JavaScript disabled and count the number of annoyances you encounter in a day.
[1]: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi#:~:text=Why%20...
Sure, if they provide some kind of gateway or mirror. But the moment that their content is only on a gemini server, I have to use a gemini client.
> These kinds of protocols are great for people who want to have an experience of browsing a web of documents knowing that they won't be giving up privacy or be bombarded with interactive attention grabbing graphical elements, advertisements, videos etc.
That is utter, complete bullshit. You don't need a new protocol for that. You just need a client that is a better fit for your needs and that can filter things for you.
> Just try browsing with JavaScript disabled and count the number of annoyances you encounter in a day.
On the flip side, think of all the websites and services in the existing web that use the technology in a sensible way and made your life better. This very website we are talking on would not exist.
By staying on the web and developing tools that improve the clients, we are trimming the downside and keeping the upside. By creating a new protocol you are negating all the upside and denying the existence of the downside it. IOW, you are just shutting yourself out like an ascetic monk. To me is an act of cowardice dressed as something virtuous.
I will keep making sites on the normal web, both for myself and my clients. Hopefully one of those will strike your fancy. But if not, that's okay too.