On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:15:54PM +0000, Johann Galle said unto me: > I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but you can get > rendering similar to man pages (which has things like bold and underline > IIRC) by using troff; it should I think be fairly easy to parse, > although I have not tried it myself. The beautiful thing of troff > in this context is that there is also a designated MIME type > text/troff [RFC4263]; they also have a https-site [TROFF]. I think that it's reasonable to suggest that clients implement a form of rich text other than text/gemini. I don't think we need to bloat text/gemini to support every use case, instead I think we should encourage a set of alternatives. Reviewing the Wikipedia list of document markup languages[1] I'd lean towards TROFF or LaTeX. They are both mature and reasonably well defined formats. LaTeX has the advantage of being a target for several document preprocessors (eg: pandoc[2]) so it need not be authored in directly. --Matt [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_document_markup_languages [2]: https://pandoc.org -- Matthew Ernisse matt at going-flying.com https://www.going-flying.com/ gemini://going-flying.com/
---
Previous in thread (12 of 29): 🗣️ Katarina Eriksson (gmym (a) coopdot.com)
Next in thread (14 of 29): 🗣️ Philip Linde (linde.philip (a) gmail.com)