Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

344K
active users

mastodon.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.0-nightly.2025-04-01

@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:

🚨 Attention Gemini, Gopher, & Finger fans —

Adële ( @adele ) has something to show you:

smolweb.org/

Adële joins others who argue that — we shouldn't throw out all of the HTML "baby" with the broken-web "bath water" — but that instead —

We should use a restricted subset of HTML — and in particular XHTML.

mastodon.tetaneutral.net/@adel

#smolWeb#smallWeb#smolNet
·Public·Web
9boosts·15favorites
Public
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:

@vegafjord

I don't want to speak for @adele , but I can tell you some of the arguments for HTML I have heard.

…

Public *
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:

@vegafjord @adele

№1:

HTML has a lot of the features that a lot of people want when writing a document.

(Contrast that with gemtext, which, for example, lacks bolding, italics, (official) inline images, tables, etc.)

And…

№2:

Software to display HTML is ubiquitous.

(This is similar to how software to display ASCII and Unicode in the form of UTF-8 are also ubiquitous.)

And…

№3:

It is easier to bring over people from the broken-web if this new web also works in broken-web-browsers.

Public
chrysn

@reiver @vegafjord @adele I'd also add that there is a lot of tooling to author HTML. People use different flavors of markdown, some prefer ReStructuredText, others asciidoc, but all of them already have converters to HTML, and those usually produce output that is also XHTML 1.0.

Public
PulkoMandy

@vegafjord @reiver I think it helps understanding that "small web" isn't something that needs new technical solutions. It is more a cultural problem: web developpers should keep resource usage in mind when designing a website, but it can be made with the tools they already know.
Also, this doesn't have to be exclusive of other options: a lot of people already chose to write content that's available both on gemini and on the web. Why not make the web part of this also non-bloated?

Public
mythodical

@reiver @adele whatever the final spec, I would love to see broader Markdown support, inline links, and basic image support.

Public
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:

@mythodical @adele

Regarding:

"whatever the final spec, I would love to see broader Markdown support, inline links, and basic image support."

Is this in comparison to Gemini's gemtext?

Public
mythodical

@reiver @adele yes sorry, I've only recently explored the Gemini protocol, and found it to be both meaningfully relevant and needlessly restrictive. I do see the merits in requiring a separate protocol though, in order to quarantine the cruft.

ExploreLive feeds
About