Discussion: safe: or safe:// protocol versus .safenet domain

This is where we differ, because I believe that mixing limits SAFE’s potential.

Edit: another analogy would be if the horse ranchers were fighting to keep using horses with the automobile even though they were not necessary.

Then you need to explain that belief. Opinions are easy to suggest like empty memes:

We’re not trying to recreate the .onion environment to the exclusion of simple private accessible, secure data. The more open the option the more free the users will be to pursue their interests and not just yours.

Indeed I would go further and wonder that those who want to see SAFE become something niche would argue for all ways to make it so.

The more flexible the capability of SAFE, the better.

Edit: Saying shit doesn’t make it true… SAFE could equally be seen as an enhancement to clearnet. It does not need to be just it’s own niche content.

Is it necessary to use swear words?

Edit: just because someone has a differing opinion than you does not mean you have to resort to obscenities.

On occasion, yes.

Base idea meets base language. The point stands, you can churn analogues all you want but we’re here talking about making SAFE as capable as practical.

Again I challenge you to explain your belief that “mixing limits SAFE’s potential.”

Actually the discussion is the preference of SAFE: or SAFE:// protocol versus .safenet domain

Based on reasoning or opinion?

Why do you want to put SAFE at a disadvantage?

Both…

Again… why do you want to put SAFE at a disadvantage?

I do not think it will be a disadvantage. I think SAFE will be better off because it chooses not to bend to the whim of the old way of doing things.

2 Likes

Why do you think that?..

If you can argue the point, then I’ll be willing to acknowledge it.

Forgive me but are you being stubborn on that?.. Would it not be better to be flexible and allow others to use SAFE as they see fit.

SAFE is a tool, it shouldn’t need a politics.

1 Like

With that logic why have standards at all?

Edit: The standards we set now will have long lasting effects. I just hope we think this through before we make any rash decisions.

1 Like

Do you mean perhaps ‘limits’?.. then, yes, I agree… why should SAFE have limits. If SAFE is as accessible and as useful as possible, then it will provide most utility… only in that case will we see its ambitions fulfilled. Setting unnecessary limits, provides no benefit.

Yes, of course… which is why it is better not to set a limit that you cannot justify and cannot anticipate. There maybe good use for mixed content and allows for consistency with normal url addressing by way of .safenet. Again, that does not prohibit SAFE enabled browsers doing whatever alt the user prefers.

I understand the urge for consistency but flexibility is more powerful.
As above, I wonder the user will see only one flavour and that all things are possible, is not a weakness.

and by saying “With that logic why have standards at all?”, if you meant principals, then I would counter again with that SAFE does not need a politics. It’s not for you; me; or anyone else to limit others’ freedom in their use of a tool that provides them privacy and security.

So you think by using safe: we would prevent people from using clearnet content etc within the safenet environment? Cause I don’t think this would be the case (but maybe we need someone to clarify that?). Or do you think it’s too complicated/ too much work for developers to use both if they wanted to?

I think it adds a complication. If we’re not arguing about mixed content being possible, then it’s a matter of what is more practical.

Obviously behind what a user might see, alsorts could occur.
A user’s browser not understanding to highlight safe: as a url, unfortunate ways?.. call that trivial perhaps but perhaps call it an irritant to devs and users who will wonder what they are looking at.
Clearnet devs might be referencing http:// and safe: in ways that confuse supporting software?

I don’t know all the issues that forcing safe: might throw… but the point is that I wonder, neither does anyone else. Given that there’s a simple option to be flexible with default use of .safenet and enhances use as safe:, I don’t see an advantage to not doing that.

I am torn by your point that it would be useful to mix clearnet with safenet and SAFE: blazing its own trail as a new protocol. I actually agree that mixing would help with adoption, but feel that it will hinder the acceptance of SAFE: as a replacement for HTTP.

1 Like

Mixed content is not ideal. There will obviously need to be some compromises made to provide certain solutions but we should push as far as possible without relying on clearweb developers and solutions.

Can you explain why using safe: would prohibit mixed content?

then

I don’t see how something that actively encourages adoption, will hinder something that is subordinate.
Adoption of SAFE is most important; acceptance of safe: may well follow. Pursuing the minor and risking the major, makes little sense.

Key word there is “may”. There is no incentive to switch from HTTP to SAFE if .safenet is used.

Edit: lets not forget that a proxy is also necessary to use .safenet

1 Like

Making content accessible, enables user to achieve their interest.

Again, that’s an opinion without justification.
Leveraging what exists, is most important. Being niche for the sake of it, will see SAFE limited unnecessarily. Again, it’s not for you to suggest how others must use SAFE.

See my other reply, two above yours: Discussion: safe: or safe:// protocol versus .safenet domain - #95 by davidpbrown