There are a couple I have in mind. Like many techies, I am a huge fan of RSS for content distribution and XMPP for federated communication.
The really niche one I like is S-expressions as a data format and configuration in place of json, yaml, toml, etc.
I am a big fan of Plaintext formats, although I wish markdown had a few more features like tables.
Unicode editors for notes/todo formats, making markup unnecessary.
Does unicode have bold/italics/underline/headings/tables/…etc.? Isn’t that outside of its intended goal? If not, how is markup unnecessary?
Does unicode have bold/italics/underline/headings/tables/
Yes, and even 𝓈𝓉𝓊𝒻𝒻 𝕝𝕚𝕜𝕖 🅣🅷🅘🆂. And table lines & edges & co. are even already in ASCII.
Isn’t that outside of its intended goal?
🤷<- this emoji has at least 6 color variants and 3 genders.
If not, how is markup unnecessary?
Because the editor could place a 𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗱 instead of a **bold**, which is a best-case-scenario with markdown support btw. And i just had to escspe the stars, which is a problem that native unicode doesn’t pose.
What about people who prefer to type
**bold**rather than type a word, highlight it, and find the Bold option in whichever textbox editor they happen to be using?Which is what i ask for, better (or at all) support for unicode character variations, including soft keyboards.
Imagine, there was a switch for bold, cursive, etc on your phone keyboard, why would you want to type markup?
And nobody would take**bold**away, if you want to write that.Would you have to do that for every letter? I suppose a “bold-on/bold-off” character combination would be better/easier, and then you could combine multiple styles without multiplying the number of glyphs by some ridiculous number.
Anyways, because markup is already standardized, mostly. Having both unicode and markup would be a nightmare. More complicated markup (bulleted lists, tables) is simpler than it would be in Unicode. And markup is outside of Unicode’s intended purpose, which is to have a collection of every glyph. Styling is separate from glyphs, and has been for a long time, for good reason. Fonts, bold/italics/underline/strikethrough, color, tables and lists, headings, font size, etc. are simply not something Unicode is designed to handle.
I don’t like that approach. Text search won’t find all the different possible Unicode representations.
You always find some excuses, huh? That would be a bug.
Always? That’s my first reply. Bug of what? A flaired character has a different code than a standard one, so your files would be incompatible with any established tools like find or grep.
TOML instead of YAML or JSON for configuration.
YAML is complex and has security concerns most people are not aware of.
JSON works, but the block quoting and indenting is a lot of noise for a simple category key value format.
People bitch about YAML but for me it’s still the preferred one just because the others suck more.
TOML like said is fine for simple things but as soon as you get a bit more complex it’s messy and unwieldy. And JSON is fine to operate on but for a config? It’s a mess. It’s harder to type and read for something like a config file.
Heck, I’m not even sold on the S-expressions compared to yaml yet. But then, I deal with so much with all of these formats that I simply still prefer YAML for readability and ease of use (compared to the others.)
TOML is not a very good format IMO. It’s fine for very simple config structures, but as soon as you have any level of nesting at all it becomes an unobvious mess. Worse than YAML even.
What is this even?
[[fruits]] name = "apple" [fruits.physical] color = "red" shape = "round" [[fruits.varieties]] name = "red delicious" [[fruits.varieties]] name = "granny smith" [[fruits]] name = "banana" [[fruits.varieties]] name = "plantain"That’s an example from the docs, and I have literally no idea what structure it makes. Compare to the JSON which is far more obvious:
{ "fruits": [ { "name": "apple", "physical": { "color": "red", "shape": "round" }, "varieties": [ { "name": "red delicious" }, { "name": "granny smith" } ] }, { "name": "banana", "varieties": [ { "name": "plantain" } ] } ] }The fact that they have to explain the structure by showing you the corresponding JSON says a lot.
JSON5 is much better IMO. Unfortunately it isn’t as popular and doesn’t have as much ecosystem support.
JSON5
Nice. I mostly use Qt JSON and upon reading the spec, I see at least a few things I would want to have out of this, even when using it for machine-machine communication
You’re using a purposely convoluted example from the spec. And I think it shows exactly how TOML is better than JSON for creating config files.
The TOML file is a lot easier to scan than the hopelessly messy json file. The mix of indentation and symbols used in JSON really does not do well in bigger configuration files.
YAML is complex and has security concerns most people are not aware of.
YAML is racist to Norwegians.
If you have something like
country: NO(NO = Norway), YAML will turn that intocountry: False. Why? Implicit casting. There are a bunch of truthy strings that’ll be cast automagically.That’s “country-ist”. Nothing to do with the genes of people living over there.
What in tarnation
I wish standards were always open access. Not behind a 600 dollar paywall.
When it is paywalled I’m irritated it’s even called a standard.
DP >> HDMI
Alright, but seriously: IPv6.
The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using “publicly available and sharable” instead (maybe there is a better name for it).
ISO standards for example are technically “open”. But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple “open” standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans [archived] on top.
IEEE standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.
how about FOSS, free and open-source standards /s
why do we call standards open when they require people to pay for access to the documents? to me that does not sound open at all
It’s a historical quirk of the industry. This stuff came around before Open Source Software and the OSI definition was ever a thing.
10BASE5 ethernet was an open standard from the IEEE. If you were implementing it, you were almost certainly an engineer at a hardware manufacturing company that made NICs or hubs or something. If it was $1,000 to purchase the standard, that’s OK, your company buys that as the cost of entering the market. This stuff was well out of reach of amateurs at the time, anyway.
It wasn’t like, say, DECnet, which began as a DEC project for use only in their own systems (but later did open up).
And then you have things like “The Open Group”, which controls X11 and the Unix trademark. They are not particularly open by today’s standards, but they were at the time.
Because non-open ones are not available, even for a price. Unless you buy something bigger than the “standard” itself of course, like a company that is responsible for it or having access to it.
There is also the process of standardization itself, with committees, working groups, public proposals, …etc involved.
Anyway, we can’t backtrack on calling ISO standards and their likes “open” on the global level, hence my suggestion to use more precise language (“publicly available and sharable”) when talking about truly open standards.
Is ipfs usage growing? Stagnant? No idea… Diatributed serving of content seems great
I never really quite understood IPFS and why it gets used where I see it today. What problem is it solving?
IPFS would replace Content Delivery Networks in present day.
It would also allow you to host software and other content from your own network again without the constraints modern Internet Service Providers pose on you to limit your self-hosting capabilities.
If applications are built for it, it could serve as live storage for your applications too.
We ran ipf-search. In one of the experiments we could show that a distributed search index on ipfs-search, accessible through JavaScript is likely feasible with the necessary research. Parts of the index would automatically be hosted by clients who used the index thus creating a fairly resilient system.
Too bad IPFS couldn’t get over the technical hurdles of limiting connection setup time. We could get a fast (ElasticSearch based) index running and hosted over common web technologies, but fetching content from IPFS directly was generally rather slow.
Would you be interested in a similar protocol that supports more things (and is IMO easier to set up)?
I’m not actively looking but please do share references! Other people may read this and they may want to know too. Perhaps I’ll jump back in the rabbit hole at some point too 😁
Okay here it goes!
Tenfingers sharing protocol & python implementation (your python needs cryptodomex, or use the frozen executables).
You share theirs, they share yours (all encrypted)! So no benevolent nodes or crypto and it’s 100% decentralised.
I’m working on a better documentation on how to set it up (just forward a port and run setup basically).
I had to read the overview and it looks nice. It reads like IPFS without some of the challenging cruft. Well written!
IPFS seemingly works small scale but not large scale. What makes tenfingers handle millions of files and petabytes of data better than IPFS? Perhaps that is not the goal. In what way do you think the tech scales? Why will discovery of the node which has the data be short?
I want to ask for benchmarks but you can’t do a full benchmark without loads of resources.
Thanks!
IPFS is static, whereas tenfingers is dynamic when it comes to the links. So you can update the shared data without the need of redistributing the link.
That said, its also very different tech wise, there is no need for benevolent nodes (or some crypto or payment).
Nodes do not need to be trustworthy either, so node discovery is very simple (basically just ask other nodes for known nodes).
The distribution part, where nodes share your data, is based on reciprocal sharing, you share theirs and they share yours. If they don’t share any more (there are checks) you just ditch the deal and ask for a new deal with another node.
With over sharing (default is you share your data with 10 other nodes, sharing their data) this should both make bad nodes a no problem, but also make for good uptime and takedown safety.
This system also makes it scalable infinitely node wise, as every node does not need to know all other nodes, just enough for their need (for example thousands out if millions of existing nodes).
To share lots if data, you need to bring enough storage and bandwith to the table because it’s reciprocal, so basically it’s up to your node how much it can share.
Big data sets are always complicated because of errors and long download times, I have done 300MB files without problems, but the download process sure can be made better (with parallel downloading for example and better error handling).
I haven’t worked on sharing way bigger datasets, even a simple terabyte is a pita to download on the regular internet :-) and the use case is more the idea of sharing lots of smaller data, like a website for example, or a chat.
What do you think, am I missing something important? Or of course if you have other questions please do ask!
Also, sorry I’m writing this on my mobile so it’s not very well written.
Edit: missed one question; getting the data is straight forward to use (a bit complicated how it’s handled because of the changing nature of things) but when you download, you have the addresses of the nodes sharing your data so you just connect to one of them and download it (or the next if the first one isn’t up etc and so on). So that should not be any kind of bottleneck.
file sharing between planets, obviously /s
The semantic web and social linked data. We could have applications share data without depending on big tech, but rather based on application standards.
It can be used today and gains traction but I wouldn’t mind it going faster. Especially the interoperable personal app space could use some love and attention.
Like with the Solid Project ?
Exactly. The Semantic Web is broader than Solid but Solid is great for personal apps.
Say you buy a smartphone. The specifications of the smartphone likely belong elsewhere than in a Solid Personal Online Datastore, but they can be pulled in from semantic data on the product website. Your own proof of purchase is a great candidate for a Solid POD, as is the trace of any repairs made to it.
These technologies are great to cross the barriers between applications. If we’d embrace this, it would be trivial to find the screen protector matching your exact smartphone because we’d have an identifier to discover its type and specifications. Heck, any product search would be easier if you could combine sources and compare with what you already have.
The sharing tech exists. Building apps works also. Interpreting the information without building a dedicated interface seems lacking for laymen.
Oddly having several variants rather than a standard despite “regular” being in the name: everyone I work with eschews regex but after finally taking the time to learn more than just the basics of it a few years afk I find it so incredibly useful almost daily.
What resource did you use to master it? As every time I have to use regex I want to cry.
regex101.com has a convenient searchable cheat sheet for all the somewhat odd but powerful functions like negative lookbehind/lookahead with a brief explanation of each, a regex pattern input with checkable boxes that helps you get down single replacements vs global replacements, a large input that lets you dump text to test against the pattern, an explanation on the right of what each symbol is trying to match, and the left side lets you switch between the different flavors to see some of the variants between languages/standards. I still have a lot to learn before I’ll consider it mastered, but I have enough common stuff memorized now that it works great for me!
Very much the same. I was terrified of regex, now I love it
Zigbee or really any Bluetooth alternative.
Bluetooth is a poorly engineered protocol. It jumps around the spectrum while transmitting, which makes it difficult and power intensive for bluetooth receivers to track.
I agree Bluetooth (at least Bluetooth Classic) is not very well designed, but not because of frequency hopping. That improves robustness and I don’t see why it would cost any more power. The hopping pattern is deterministic. Receivers know in advance which frequency to hop to.
Not sure if it counts, but the terminal world being a place where many applications do so many different things but are interoperable, is amazing. I guess that would be the POSIX standard?
This isn’t exactly what you asked, but our URI/URL schema is basically a bunch of missed opportunities, and I wish it was better designed.
Ok so it starts off with the scheme name, which makes sense. http: or ftp: or even tel:
But then it goes into the domain name system, which suffers from the problem that the root, then top level domain, then domain, then progressively smaller subdomains, go right to left. www.example.com requires the system look up the root domain, to see who manages the .com tld, then who owns example.com, then a lookup of the www subdomain. Then, if there needs to be a port number specified, that goes after the domain name, right next to the implied root domain. Then the rest of the URL, by default, goes left to right in decreasing order of significance. It’s just a weird mismatch, and would make a ton more sense if it were all left to right, including the domain name.
Then don’t get me started about how the www subdomain itself no longer makes sense. I get that the system was designed long before HTTP and the WWW took over the internet as basically the default, but if we had known that in advance it would’ve made sense to not try to push www in front of all website domains throughout the 90"s and early 2000’s.
Then don’t get me started about how the www subdomain itself no longer makes sense. I get that the system was designed long before HTTP and the WWW took over the internet as basically the default, but if we had known that in advance it would’ve made sense to not try to push www in front of all website domains throughout the 90"s and early 2000’s.
I have never understood why you can delegate a subdomain but not the root domain, I doubt it was a technical issue because they added support for it recently via
SVCBrecords (But maybe technical concerns were actually fixed in the decades since)This is actually exactly what I asked for, thank you!!
Don’t worry, in 5 or 10 years Google will develop an alternative and the rest of FAANG will back it. It will be super technically correct but will include a cryptographic signature that only big tech companies can issue.
ISO 216 paper sizes work like this: https://www.printed.com/blog/paper-size-guide/
It’s so fucking neat and intuitive! How is it not used more???
sorry to tell you this bud…
It’s also worth noting that switching from ANSI to ISO 216 paper would not be a substantial physical undertaking, as the short-side of even-numbered ISO 216 paper (eg A2, A4, A6, etc) is narrower than for ANSI eqjivalents. And for the odd-numbered sizes, I’ve seen Tabloid-size printers in America which generously accommodate A3.
For comparison, the standard “Letter” paper size (aka ANSI A) is 8.5 inches by 11 inches. (note: I’m sticking with American units because I hope Americans read this). Whereas the similar A4 paper size is 8.3 inches by 11.7 inches. Unless you have the rare, oddball printer which takes paper long-edge first, this means all domestic and small-business printers could start printing A4 today.
In fact, for businesses with an excess stock of company-labeled #10 envelopes – a common size of envelope, measuring 4.125 inches by 9.5 inches – a sheet of A4 folded into thirds will still (just barely) fit. Although this would require precision folding, that’s no problem for automated letter mailing systems. Note that the common #9 envelope (3.875 inches by 8.875 inches) used for return envelopes will not fit an A4 sheet folded in thirds. It would be advisable to switch entirely to A series paper and C series envelopes at the same time.
Confusingly, North America has an A-series of envelopes, which bear no relation to the ISO 216 paper series. Fortunately, the overlap is only for the less-common A2, A6, and A7.
TL;DR: bring reams of A4 to the USA and we can use it. And Tabloid-size printers often accept A3.
My printer will print and scan any A side paper. But I can’t even buy A paper! Fucking America
Clearly the rest of the world are communists! It’s not us, it’s you! I’m not crying you’re crying! 😭😭😭
Presumably you could just buy that paper size? They’re pretty similar sizes; printers all support both sizes. I’ve never had an issue printing a US Letter sized PDF (which I assume I have done).
Kind of weird that you guys stick to US Letter when switching would be zero effort. I guess to be fair there aren’t really any practical benefits either.
I’ve literally never even seen A paper in America. Probably would have to special order it from another country
Ah fair enough.
I mean I’d love to use it. Of course America is behind the times of civilized nations.
Also, A4 simply has a better ratio than letter. Letter is too wide, making A4 better to hold and it fits more lines per page.
I wish there was a good open standard for task management or todo list.
I know there’s todo.txt, but it lacks features like dependent tasks, and overall the plain text format limits features and implementations.
Do you know if it allows dependent tasks?
Yes, but not all clients expose dependent tasks (which is sadly a common issue with open standards: they aren’t always properly implemented). I’m using Tasks.org on my phone (which supports dependent tasks), synchronizing to a Nextcloud server with the Tasks app (which supports dependent tasks now, but didn’t for a long time), which also syncs to Thunderbird (which does not appear to show dependent tasks as dependents).
Well that’s still good news that I didn’t expect! I suppose I will look into that then. Thank you!
I’ll give my usual contribution to RSS feed discourse, which is that, news flash! RSS feeds support video!
It drives me crazy when podcasters are like, “thanks for listening to our audio podcasts. We also have a video feed for our YouTube subscribers.” Just let me have the video in PocketCasts please!
I feel you but i dont think podcasters point to youtube for video feeds because of a supposed limitation of RSS. They do it because of the storage and bandwidth costs of hosting video.
I just wrote a YouTube scraper and exported to RSS and into my podcast client. Using YouTube any other way is masochism in comparison.
djot for text markup. It addresses a lot of the issues in Common mark (and of course far more of the issues of Markdown).
