[tech] doubts (was Re: [spec] [rfc] SEDR 300 VOLUME I)

[Petite Abeille]

> On Dec 27, 2020, at 22:43, Petite Abeille <petite.abeille at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't foresee any engineering issues if we do our due diligence.

Honestly, I do have doubts now. Engineering wise.

This is not meant to be insulting to anyone's ego, but let's be realistic about our technical acumen, or possible lack thereof.

We do not appear to understand the two basic building blocks around which the whole of Gemini is constructed: URL and UTF-8. †

Not to mention how they relate to each other.


Exhibit № 1: the path segment discussion

Neither Stephane, who has spend his entire adult life versed in RFC literature, nor Sean, a technical master if there is one, nor even Google's own Go library,  get it right. In 2020.

Path segments have been around since time immemorial. They are not optional. It's not a "nice to have". Not understanding them betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what an URL is.


Exhibit № 2: the URI vs. IRI saga

The only difference between URI & IRI is the ASCII armor around UTF-8. They are identical otherwise. They can both represent UTF-8, and therefore Unicode. Just differently.

And yet the conversation has been everywhere but at the crux of the issue, which is Unicode. As always.

Just yesterday, Soldierpunk had his eureka moment:

"...and actually, now that I think about, this issue is not specific to IRI support, is it? "

You are not saying. Nothing to do with IRI indeed. Everything to do with Unicode, as always.


I do appreciate we all have different level of technical understandings, and it never stops. Turtles all the way down.

But still, this is meant to be about designing a formal protocol. We must understand these basic building blocks to succeed.


On the other hand, there is Solene, who single-handily, without blinking, demonstrates what the essence of an IRI is, with ½ a dozen lines of old fashioned C code. ‡

So perhaps not everything is lost. But what a slog.



† Ignoring TLS, no one understand it.
‡ Yes, ± some details. But see Exhibit № 1 and № 2.