Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39954179

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38252629

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

PHP-Markdown-Extra is the closest thing to a standard with more than GitHub-Flavored-Markdown; several other Markdown engines use its featureset as a baseline for compatibility for anything not present in GFM, even blocking the shipping of new features until after PME agrees on a syntax. So you can think of CommonMark as the lowest common denominator, GFM for an intermediate version, and PHP-Markdown-Extra as something suitable for building more advanced websites.

I'm trying to adopt as much IndieWeb as I can while still remaining a static JS-free site (except for the crappy search results page). Comments are Webmentions.

I test compatibility with a lot more than just mainstream browsers: the Tor Browser's safest mode, various article extractors, NetSurf, Ladybird, w3m, and a dozen other user-agents work well. Accessibility-wise, I'm close to WCAG 2.2 AAA compliance, and have already passed AA; I consider WCAG a starting rather than a stopping point. More on its design is in the "Meta" section.

It has long-form blog articles and short-form notes (microblogs).

My best posts are on the homepage, followed by a bunch of webrings.

It's similar to JK Rowling getting famous off the Harry Potter franchise and using that clout in a way that causes harm, prompting others to stop promoting her works and thus stop feeding her positive attention. Having read one of those books or having watched one of her movies doesn't make you a transophobe, but promoting her works gives her the means to do harm.

Moreover, the majority of soapbox instances tend to be freeze peach servers that either contain or amplify other harassers. Good soapbox instances tend to be the exception rather than the norm.

Until then, LD_PRELOAD is your friend (assuming you build with semantic interposition).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34098513

Points: 75

# Comments: 6

Requiring CAs and not implementing support for other anchors of trust is an implementation decision, and is not mandated by the spec. The spec mandates TLS 1.3, not "the version of TLS 1.3 used by these three web browsers". QUIC was designed with non-browser use in mind too; it's for any situation where you want to maintain connection integrity in an unreliable network.

Unless it's a personal site/blog I typically open a site to find information I came for, and close it as soon as that task is done. Anything that makes this take longer than it needs to gets blocked. Sites should strive to stay open for as few seconds/minutes as possible while still giving me the requested information.

Regarding text/image-focused sites that require JS: I generally find sites made by people who haven't figured out how to send text over HTTPS to have low-quality content befitting of their low-quality stacks. I'm all the better for using my adblocker to block them from my search results page forever; it saves me time in the long run.

Businesses are not entitled to the success of their business models. If a business model fails due to consumer behavior, the business was in the wrong for expecting different behavior.

> I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off.

Distracting content (most ads), color schemes with bad contrast, bright images on dark pages, etc. are accessibility hazards (particularly cognitive accessibility hazards). Restricting the use of page-alteration software (e.g. color and font alteration, disabling images, and blocking frames) is therefore a discriminatory practice.

In a sibling subthread:

> The part of your analogy where you say people who want burgers don't have any other choice seems not to fit: you can eat other foods which don't have this requirement, just like there are lots of places on the internet where you can exchange money for ad-free content.

The default behavior on the Web is one in which user-agents set their terms, and websites must agree to them: https://seirdy.one/notes/2022/08/12/user-agents-set-the-term...

The libertarian perspective is a two-way street. Nobody is forcing a person to publish content on the Web. If the "comply with the user's wishes" model of the Web is problematic to a content creator, they don't need to participate in the Web.

POSSE (Publish on Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere) note from https://seirdy.one/notes/2022/09/10/in-defense-of-content-bl...

Can Caddy leverage either form of padding? If so, I might need to give it another look!

And regarding modules: most are written in C and dynamically loaded as shared objects or statically linked during compile-time. A bunch are listed at https://www.nginx.com/resources/wiki/modules/. The ones for live streaming and VODs are the hardest to replace, IMO. IPScrub was my favorite but I haven't used it for a few years.

Personally, I think live streaming and ffmpeg-based encoding are specialized enough to warrant a specialized server (like a custom Nginx build) and are a bit out of scope for a general-purpose user-friendly server like Caddy.

- Nginx supports OpenSSL commands that enable features like TLS record padding.

- Performance: better latency and scalability to more connections. Not everyone uses a CDN for static/cached content

- Kernel-accelerated TLS offload on Linux and FreeBSD

- Many existing modules provide unique functionality. The many modules for live video streaming and image processing are good examples.

- An ecosystem of patches with features like HPACK static dictionaries, dynamic TLS record sizing, etce

> …has terrible language integration.

Generally, "language integration" isn't really a use-case for vanilla Nginx; it's a use-case for Nginx Unit, an Nginx language-specific module, or OpenResty. I personally prefer the reverse-proxy route since it lets me use whatever language I want regardless of server support: Go, Rust, Python, C, etc.

If none of these are that important then I absolutely would not recommend Nginx; Caddy would be the better tool.

> People aren't writing internet scale software in lua for a reason.

I'd include Itch.io, much of Taobao, and some of the most popular API gateways (including Kong) in the category of "Internet-scale software written by 'people'".

POSSE (Publish on Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere) note from https://seirdy.one/notes/2022/09/09/reasons-to-use-nginx/

Document-Policy explainer: https://github.com/wicg/document-policy/blob/main/document-p...

I tried it out on my own site, and through trial-and-error I found that Chromium does in fact treat the "max-bpp" Document-Policy directives as bytes-per-pixel.

I could be wrong; my memory has faded. Please correct me if this is the case.