> Sure, but what's the point then? Seems like .html with extra steps, not to mention that the URL itself won't work.

Literally says in the submission title and the website itself: An entire website encoded in a URL.

And yes, the domain part of the URL might not work, but whatever URL you use locally would work just as well if you switch the domain, unless I'm missing something.

> Now for online, the data is in the URL already, publicly available (unless shared privately), and the "loader" is still served from the server, so you have to trust the server not to exfiltrate the data.

Yes, the data is in the URL, seems to be the single point of this entire project. I don't seem to find any "server" doing anything of worth here, all the meat really sits in the client-side code, which you can serve however you like, might even work through file://, haven't tried it myself.

▲

bronxpockfabz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> An entire website encoded in a URL

It is very much not, open the network tab on any of the examples, behold.

	▲	embedding-shape 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> open the network tab on any of the examples Ok, using https://nowhr.xyz/s#yzXyzs8PcDbxyQ_0KbYMzzRNytKNyE0JDM0x8zT2... as found in the HN comments as an example. Not a single one of those requests contain the string "This is a message site. I guess. Just checking.", or did I miss something? All it seems to load is the "website loader", which is the part that decodes the URL (locally) and displays you "the website". So assuming you have local access to the loader and you have the parts from the URL, you'd be able to load it. I'm not sure if y'all are consciously misreading how this is supposed to work, or if I'm misunderstanding what y'all are complaining about. It's not "A public internet website can be loaded if you're not connected to the public internet", it's "websites loaded in this way can be loaded this way as long as you have the loader".