• JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    It’s an intriguing idea and might well be in line with the founding principles of the internet.

    As I understand it, the URI is supposed to define the type of data you will find at the address, allowing you to use a client dedicated to that type. So: use a Gopher client for gopher:// data, a newsgroup program for nntp:// data, and of course a web browser for http://.

    So the issue here would be to define what “fediverse data” actually looks like. This is quickly becoming quite a technical challenge.

    Personally I like the idea of standardizing communication paradigms with a protocol, but you do first have to decide what the paradigms are. A few obvious suggestions:

    • IM, or one-to-one message (holy grail! but then not public, by definition)
    • many-to-many text message (IRC)
    • forum post with comments (this thing right here)
    • one-to-many message (Xitter, Mastodon)

    Since the ActivityPub protocol seems to be the de-facto glue to this fediverse thing, maybe that’s where to look first.

  • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    Absolutely not. It should run on HTTP, as a website. Unless you want to build a client which would be somehow fundamentally different from a web browser somehow (note: Lagrange and Gopher Browser are just browsers), which would somehow be able to display data from every use of ActivityPub / “the fediverse” in a different context from a web browser, then no. What we need to build is website software more in line with kbin / mbin, collecting together all the different information of the fediverse into one interface.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      It could continue running on HTTP(S). Did you know browsers and OSs can handle different URL schemas than the ones they natively open (http, https, file, data)? Ever saw a mailto, magnet, ms-word etc. URL schema? They can be opened with an in-browser or native app of your choice, and this has worked for years. Yes, clients would need to be patched for support but that’s easy. I would only add “instance’s native UI” as a fallback for people coming from outside the fediverse.

      • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Mail clients, torrent clients, and word processors are fundamentally different from browsers. Yes, we can implement their base functions inside a web browser, but that’s not their function, or their core UX principle. Also, you forgot NNTP. Thee is no value in moving away from HTTP(S).

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          We’re not suggesting moving away from the HTTPS protocol. Gmail and other web email apps, as well as Word Online etc. still use HTTPS to communicate with their backend infrastructure. They are just registered in your browser as apps that can handle the mailto:// or ms-word:// URL schema. This registering most likely happens automatically when you have visited a page that supports the schema so fediverse:// links would continue working for Fediverse users - they’d see a prompt to open the link with their home instance’s web app (its web interface like the default web UI) or a dedicated web app they are already using like Voyager. What would need to change is just a minor thing: browsers would need to offer the default web UI of target instance as fallback: for example, even if you haven’t visited any Fediverse site yet, the link fediverse://lemmy.example.com/post/1337 will show “lemmy.example.com web interface” in the “Open with…” option list, redirecting to https://lemmy.example.com/post/1337.

  • e0qdk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    19 days ago

    Not that I’m opposed, but I’m not sure if it’s practical to make a fediverse-wide link that’s resolvable between platforms since there are so many differences and little incompatibilities and developers who don’t directly interact with each other – or even know each other exist!

    Even if it isn’t though, it would be nice to be able to do something like lemmy://(rest of regular url) to indicate data from a lemmy(-compatible) server that should be viewable by all other lemmy clients without leaving your particular client and having to open some other website.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 days ago

      Upside down, as the other comment says. It should rather be forum:// or similar, i.e. a generic self-explanatory term for the type of data. The branded networks like this one would then follow the standard in order to display properly.

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 days ago

    The disadvantage is, Reddit and other platforms will never add support for [fediverse hyperlink](fediverse://example.com/post/1337) Markdown syntax, or even start blocking it (they can already block known Fediverse domains but there would be backlash if they did).

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 days ago

      You wouldn’t need browser extensions to open links on your instance

      App maintainers wouldn’t need to maintain lists of instances to correctly signal “I can open this” to the OS

      So if your Mastodon instance just sprung up, you can just give someone a link like fediverse://masto.darkthough.ts/post/1337 and it will auto-open using the app and instance account of their choosing.