Thanks for feedback, Luke. I initially went with the [N] syntax. What I found out was that "url [1]" does not work because of things like "[constellation]s" becoming "constellation [1]s". "[1] url" is not ideal either, as some clients, like av98, would already have a link counter, and since I have a 2 links hardcoded at the top of the page to search and home, I ended up needing to increment link counter by 2, and even then it would be rendered as "[22] [22] name". In the end I changed it to "... [url] ..." so the reader knows that they can get more info by finding the link at the end of the paragraph. Hopefully it's a good compromise. On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:19 AM Luke Emmet <luke at marmaladefoo.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter > > That looks great and is worth keeping if you are happy to host it. > > The question of what is the equivalent of in-line links in Gemini comes > up from time to time, either as it is a natural thing that authors want > to do and already do, or when re-presenting existing markdown or html > for gemini. > > The most common idiom I have seen is the use of square brackets to > indicate the placemarker in the text line as a citation, followed by a > link having the reference. For example like this [1] that would be one > of the subsequent links, or another one [2] that goes to the second one. > It is a common form seen in many places, such as academic papers with > footnotes and references. > > => url display text with matching item at end [1] > => url2 [2] display text with match at beginning > > Personally I find this better than simply having the text without any > clear boundary, as it is clearer where the citation is made. For example > if you just use a single word it is unclear which usage of it is the > link anchor. There could even be multiple words that match, and you > don't want them all implicitly referencing the link. So it is more > specific this way. > > My personal view is that this type of re-wiring-up, to put back the > links into the text could be a client option, and user choice. Then the > hotspots in the text could be reinstated. The criteria would be: > > 1. Link anchor uses the defined pattern e.g. > > - [n] as the first or last item in the display text > - or more adventurously, matching text in a square bracket as the > whole link line display text like this: [the thing] > > 2. After the line is a list of links, and there is a match as the first > or last word in the display text. Or maybe just in the following content > (like a list of references at the end of the page) > > 3. Then the link anchor is wired up to the target > > - optional) the link line is optionally hidden (again user and client > choice) > > It would be nice if the mirroring tools adopted a common convention on > this, as then clients can do more work to improve the UI for users. > > And anyway, this all gracefully degrades and is just a client nicety. It > could be noted as part of our collective common practice. > > Best wishes > > - Luke > > On 19-Jun-2020 23:46, Peter Vernigorov wrote: > > Wikipedia on Gemini by popular demand: > > > > gemini://wp.pitr.ca/en/Gemini_(constellation) > > > > This is not strictly a mirror, as a dump of wikipedia is quite large - > > https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200520/ - but rather a proxy that > > makes request to wikipedia API, parses wikitext into an HTML DOM > > (since wikitext supports HTML tags) which is then simplified into > > text/gemini. This process is not perfect and there are quite a few > > imperfections. But before I sink more time into this, I wonder if > > text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. Pages > > are usually huge, with lots of links. And this is even before > > considerations for how best to handle images, tables, special symbols, > > special tags, etc. From trying to browse it myself, my first > > impression is that wikipedia format can't/shouldn't be simplified any > > further than it already is on the web. What do others think? > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM defdefred<defdefred at protonmail.com> wrote: > >> Soon a wikipedia mirror? > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> ??????? Original Message ??????? > >> On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24,<paper at tilde.institute> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > >>>> Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Solderpunk > >>> I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. > >>> > >>> Paper > >>
---
Previous in thread (10 of 11): 🗣️ paper (a) tilde.institute (paper (a) tilde.institute)