gemini:// and spartan:// resources are part of the Web. (So is Gopherspace, for that matter.) They're not mutually exclusive; the Web is not HTML over HTTP. To focus on one example: Gopher space is a subset of the Web.*
I encourage everybody to read TBL's book Weaving The Web and his other expository writing about the birth of the Web, the thinking that went into URIs/UDIs, and the absence of a universal information space—the hole that existed before he invented the Web to fill it.
* whether mainstream browsers by the big tech companies support or not is a separate matter
It depends what you mean by "The Web"; the words might have more than one possible meaning. Usually you would say HTML and HTTP(S) is "The Web", although you could also consider a wider definition, that since gemini:// and spartan:// resources have URLs, they can also be considered as a part of "the Web", too.
That's an understatement, which is sort of the whole point of what I wrote:
> I encourage everybody to read TBL's book Weaving The Web and his other expository writing
People who think they know what the Web is but thinks it doesn't include Gopherspace are simply wrong; they are ignorant—in the literal, denotative sense of the word.
The Web is widely understood to refer to interconnected resources* with links between them. Aside from that, you're on pretty shaky ground here. The person on the street has no idea what HTML or HTTP(S) are. It's not unlikely that they have never even heard of them. Which means you've committed yourself to defending the semi-informed technologist who thinks they know what they're talking about except that they don't. That's a lot narrower of a demographic than your appeal to popularity here lets on (or would even help with—assuming that we don't throw it out on the grounds that it's just an appeal to popularity).
* usually pages; sometimes apps; and probably you could get people to pretty quickly acknowledge stuff like images, etc. if you brought it up ("oh, yeah; those too").
I've lightly struggled w/ this but I think the Web is HTTP/HTML/JS [0]. Like, the Web isn't FTP or SSH, or NTP or NNTP. You can maybe make a case for Gemini/Spartan/Gopher because of linking, but they don't really interact, so on some level they compete.
According to that Wiki link, HTTP is "The Web" by definition. And I don't think many people would agree with the statement "Gopher is part of the Web".
I wasn't disagreeing, just continuing the conversation! I notice that for some reason it's hard to "yes, and" on HN. I need to look into ways of conveying a more positive tone without overshooting and sounding insincere, or too cute.
Oh me too for sure. I generally end up littering my emails (for example) with exclamation points just to avoid sounding like "stern male software engineer" but like, is that unprofessional? Why is life so hard haha.
A lot of my thinking has been around "descope the web". Like, ignore the shortcomings of the other protocols (i.e. assume we can improve them like we improved HTTP) and move functionality to them whenever it makes sense. Downloads not related to a HTML file work over FTP or BitTorrent. Interactive apps (e.g. Spotify) can run over SSH or (gasp) run locally. Forums like HN or Reddit move to NNTP. When I peel all that back, I find that the essence of "the Web" is basically wikis.
But then I think that wikis are really a super weird case. They're like some kind of incepted Web where the difference is, idk curation? Organization? Maybe we were getting close to "wiki quality" with the semantic Web and microformats, but then SPAs took over.
> A lot of my thinking has been around "descope the web".
I thought so too.
> Downloads not related to a HTML file work over FTP or BitTorrent.
It is not related to whether or not the file is HTML; protocols such as HTTP and Gemini can still be used to download any kinds of files (and I think the range requests is a good feature of HTTP for this purpose; my own Scorpion protocol also has range requests, but unlike HTTP it does not allow multiple ranges per request and does not have range units other than bytes).
For some kinds of large files, BitTorrent would help. However, I think there are many problems with FTP, so I would not want to use that.
> Interactive apps (e.g. Spotify) can run over SSH or (gasp) run locally.
Yes. Using interactive protocols such as SSH, Telnet, etc, are good ideas, and local programs are also good ideas.
(A local program (and even a HTML-based web app) are not always usable on all computers and there may be security issues, but there are ways around these things; simple and limited VM codes can easily ignore them. Having them for multiple systems available, having FOSS (so that you can compile it yourself, view the code if necessary, and modify it if necessary (whether it is needed to work on your system or because what you want the program to do is different from what the existing implementation does)), operating system design, etc, can also help.)
> Forums like HN or Reddit move to NNTP.
Yes. I think it is a good idea.
> I find that the essence of "the Web" is basically wikis.
It is something that HTTP could work well with, if used in a better way (rather than adding the webapps and that stuff on top of HTTP that is used by Wikipedia and other wikis like that). However, to work better for a wiki, an additional command should be added into HTTP, which would be a HISTORY command; that is the only function that seems to be missing when using HTTP directly. (HTTP already has such things as: PUT, If-Match, etc.)
However, even then, it could be designed better; there are still problems with it. (Furthermore, protocols other than HTTP may also potentially be suitable, maybe.)
I encourage everybody to read TBL's book Weaving The Web and his other expository writing about the birth of the Web, the thinking that went into URIs/UDIs, and the absence of a universal information space—the hole that existed before he invented the Web to fill it.
* whether mainstream browsers by the big tech companies support or not is a separate matter