← Back to context

Comment by mattlondon

1 day ago

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 think it is a more of a deliberate choice). That's fine. It's their protocol and they can do what they want with it, but I think they missed an opportunity for it to take off.

Various people since have suggested we just settle on HTML 4 (with no scripting) and we'd be way better off and I agree.

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 that won't send me to a page full of ads, tracking and heavy javascript with an embedded crypto miner.

You often find some http/https links on gemini capsules, but most clients will render the link in a different color so you kbow what to expect when clicking on a web link.

  • 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.

  • You can prevent many kind of ads and tracking from working and disable JavaScripts (and other features if wanted, e.g. CSS) entirely, although there is no guarantee that it will work.