[CyberRabbi]

> That's a massively more complex implementation for no benefit.

It’s barely complex. It’s a standard dispatch on the accept header, all major web servers handle this out of the box. Also it has the significant benefit of working with existing browsers. On what basis were you making that statement?

> Also it's definitely not enough to set a HTTP header. Need to use a different schema so that the restraints on content can be expressed in the URL of a link.

You can accomplish the same URL transparency by using a file extension convention. E.g. “https://foo.com/my log.gemini”

[DarylZero]

I meant that an implementation of HTTP is massively more complex than an implementation of Gemini.

> You can accomplish the same URL transparency by using a file extension convention. E.g. “https://foo.com/my log.gemini”

The extension shouldn't be `.gemini` it should be `.this-is-not-malware-i-super-pinky-promise`

Just kidding. The problem is you can't enforce a mere "convention" against malicious actors.

[CyberRabbi]

> I meant that an implementation of HTTP is massively more complex than an implementation of Gemini.

The subset of http necessary to support Gemini-style requests is really not complex at all. I’ve written basic http servers in hours if not minutes.

> The extension shouldn't be `.gemini` it should be `.this-is-not-malware-i-super-pinky-promise`

If you are someone who uses what I’m calling “http-Gemini” because they are worried about malware then use the stripped down “http Gemini” browser. For the rest of the world who is already comfortable with potential malware in their links, there is no change. The control stays in the user’s hands.

[DarylZero]

OK, but you didn't say anything about defining a subset of HTTP.