Self-hosting is a way of providing a web resource by hosting it on the server that you directly control, rather than using a service that hosts something for you and lets you control it via some high level tools like an admin or control panel.
When I talk about self-hosting I mean a situation where a developer hosts a web project of theirs on their own server or a server that they directly control, and not by uploading and embedding it on itch.
What got you so confused is my mention of the fact that I also provide the source files of the web version, so people who desire, for whatever reason, to host a copy of the project themselves, can do so. This is unrelated to my question, but I brought it up because you decided to make an argument about a situation where the project is not downloadable from itch. I merely pointed out that this is not the case for me, and that this is not a part of the premise for my proposal.
I provide source files because it’s an open source project. People are free to do with it as they please. So in good faith I provide as much as I can, because different users might have different needs. Which is, again, beside the point of this proposal and was but a side remark that I’ve added to highlight that the project is very much downloadable in my case, and that I use itch for its primary purpose.
This is not a blocker to me, and if leafo and team decide against this, or even completely ignore this suggestion, it wouldn’t really bother me. I just thought it’d be good to let the users know that the project is available on web in a way that is as noticeable as other related projects. It sucks to not be discoverable when great efforts have been put to make this version happen. But it is what it is, and I’d be fine with either resolution. Nothing hangs in balance for me. It’s just an idea.
I find your comparison inappropriate and pointless. There are no technical limitations for uploading any executable to itch and labeling them appropriately between the 4 supported platforms. If someone chooses not to do it, then, well, it’s up to them. Hosting web applications on 3rd party services like itch, however, is not always possible. While itch is extremely accommodating, it has its own things to consider. And as a developer I have to consider that if part of my users may have inadequate experience, I should make sure that they don’t.
I could upload the project to be hosted by itch in whatever form it can be, but that means I have to support this second web version of the app, in an environment that I do not control and cannot apply every fix possible if needed. This is undesirable, and it increases burden on me, as a sole developer maintaining a rather popular open source project. But again, I don’t demand or request itch to change anything about their support for web-based projects. And it’s not critical to me that they even consider my suggestion.
I just think it’s a good idea to help developers and users connect better. Your views seem to be rather conservative in that regard. So you try to convince me that I need to do something, that I’m approaching this incorrectly, that it’s mine and mine alone problem and my point of view is insignificant. You wave at the other comment here that mentions that they don’t want to go outside of itch’s ecosystem as if that should discourage me. You demand someone enlighten you why this should be such a brilliant idea.
What’s with all the gatekeeping? You’re making such a big deal out of a tiny suggestion, creating a hostile environment where the person proposing must prove something to you. I’m beginning to regret to even trying to propose anything. But maybe that is exactly what you want people to feel.