[tech] /.well-known/capability ehlo

[Philip Linde]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:36:57 +0100
Petite Abeille <petite.abeille at gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course, this says nothing about actual use of the protocol. Which can be combined in all sort of weird and wonderful ways to fully subvert such grand "design principle" if needed.

Yes, and when that happens in practice in such a way that the
specification no longer represents actual use, I guess it's reasonable
that the difference between specification and implementations in the
wild should be discussed here.

> The building blocks are chunky and complicate enough on their own to make it complex, both in terms of implementation and actual usage. Not to mention unattended consequences.

Agreed, but I don't see how inviting additional complexity through
extensions will improve that situation.

> The protocol can be trivially extended through conventions.

The non-trivial part is convincing enough implementers to adopt such
conventions that it becomes a problem for compliant implementations.
That compliant extension is only possible through ugly, subversive
hacks should add some resistance to the notion.

Regarding the parts about retrofuturistic goldilocks, Saint-Exupéry, my
progressive grandma and her samizdat poetry etc.: as a response to my
post it strikes me as inane and distracting. I'm not totally humorless,
but it feels like a brain DoS when I have to sift through more than a
handful of it to find some actual, fully expressed points that I can
consider and respond to.

-- 
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201221/e2461aed/attachment-0001.sig>