• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    72·
    20 days ago

    silly. this would be like expecting to use IE:// for internet explorer webpages instead of an expected protocol standard like http. defeats the purpose of protocol designed around content not applications.

    imagine how shitty email would be if we had to tag the server application somewhere in the uri. silly.

    • e0qdk@reddthat.comEnglish
      4·
      19 days ago

      It’s not a particular protocol right now, but it would be a URI that refers to a specific resource. A protocol could also be defined – e.g. a restricted subset of HTTPS that returns JSON objects following a defined schema or something like that – but the point really is that I want to be able to refer to a thread not a webpage. I don’t think that’s a silly thing to want to be able to do.

      Right now, I can only effectively link to a post or thread as rendered by a specific interface – e.g. for me, this thread is https://old.reddthat.com/post/30710789 using reddthat’s mlmym interface. That’s probably not how most users would like to view the thread if I want to link it to them. Any software that recognizes the new URI scheme could understand that I mean a particular thread rather than how it’s rendered by a particular web app, and go fetch it and render it appropriately in their client if I link it. (If current clients try to be clever about HTTP links, it becomes ambiguous if I mean the thread as rendered into a webpage in specific way or if I actually meant the thread itself but had to refer to it indirectly; that causes problems too.)

      I don’t think lemmy:// is necessarily the best prefix – especially if mbin, piefed, etc. get on board – just that I would like functionality like that very much, and that something like a lemmy URI scheme (or whatever we can get people to agree on) might be a good way to accomplish it.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        2·
        19 days ago

        if anything, the op had it correct with fedi:// or ap://

        the requests and responses standardized as with any protocol regardless of underlying server.

        objects in the fediverse are urls. thats just how it works.

        apps (clients) accessing that content are outside the scope of the protocol… its their own implementation problem with how they render stuff (those object urls).

        for example; mbin can already consume/ingest a given fediverse thread, post or comment if it has never seen it before (given the url) and render it correctly.