With certificate transparency, I dont think SXG's expiration is a real barrier to broader use. The hardnosed shitty browser attitude around right now: it will collapse in the face of obvious utility, other people will implememt more aspirational & liberal systems. This stance is untennable in the face of the obvious huge value of being able to look at old signed content, particularly when coupled with certificate transparency systems. This conservative standard will is just a minimal & obvious agreeable starting place, something to appease the rejectionist low-caliber safari-alike attitudes, but adoption will give way to expansion, given the immense user value of signed content. I say this as a core core protester against these pathetic loserly expiration timeouts[1].

I get maybe not putting all your chips in SXG basket. I disagree with a bunch of the protest: this seems like a sensible, basic, obvious layered enhancement to the existing web. Safari & Mozia are (as is the mood today) being terrible shits as usual, the regressives.

Contrasting ADX versus SXG just feels so wild, because SXG is a small refinememt to a vast world spanning & complete ecosystem of technology that has already taken over the planet. It directly targets the one complaint you make: http-server centricity, & sets dynamite to that one old bad no-good base. And ADX is an standalone completely isolated alternate world, it's own reality. This tension, whether we need a baseline which is 100% new & novel & redefines the entire problem space on it's own terms, completely from scratch, or whether we can hack & improve & enhance what we have: I dont feel like there's any camp at all left to defend improvememt.

Ideally SXG would be used woth additional user-encryption. User subdomains, eith their own keys would be swell. Turning sites into sites of sites is what SXG really starts to permit. Layering in some .well-known to be more cryptographically portable with identities ks just another small enhancement, just more layering, albeit yet-more-idealism.

Tear it all down, start over... it's the mode. I agree, this debate needs more than HM comments. But this tension & conflict, this view of the world & how it evolves or revolts: it's been trying to make revutions & insist no bounds, nothing today can possibly be good enough for tomorrow. And two plus decades latter, it's made such tiny impact, is so niche.

I accept your snub, getting told im exasperated, but it's for a real reason, it's because these decades have failed to deliver & so few have willingly tried improving what is (Safari & Mozia being a quite vocal modern anchor keeling things in place, a modern astrpturfing shouting class against trying anything, especially). This effort does have the social capital to perhaps emerge & birth something new, but we could also just improve & greatly fix everything that ready is. With minor, layered, small, principled enhancements.

[1] https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/597