On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 23:17:19 -0700 Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> wrote: > There?s a persistent worry on other threads that Gemini might become > ?too complex?, for some definition of ?complex?. The only problem I've had with Gemtext is that it so closely resembles Markdown that sometimes I use the wrong syntax for URLs when I'm drunk. This isn't a bad thing, incidentally. Gemtext lends itself well to a Gemini-first/Web-second approach where you write your content as Gemtext first, then copy the file to the same name with a .md or .markdown extension, change the link syntax, and add frontmatter if you're using a static site generator like Jekyll, Hugo, or Pelican. Hell, you could probably just use pandoc and a makefile if you know what you're doing. Or, you could just take your gemtext, change the extension, and manually wrap everything in HTML tags. > On the other hand, I think there?s a fairly, if not fully, general > counterargument to all sorts of additions that we might want to make > to the spec: > > ?There?s nothing wrong ? or even uncool ? about making a website with > only HTML and, at most, 30 lines of CSS that looks great in Lynx.? > > Thoughts? Counterarguments? I think a lot of people concerned about web bloat would benefit from being directed to the following websites even if their names might be offensive:
---
Previous in thread (9 of 12): 🗣️ meff (meff (a) meff.me)
Next in thread (11 of 12): 🗣️ Matthew Graybosch (hello (a) matthewgraybosch.com)