On 2021-02-23 05:21PM, Oliver Simmons wrote: > At current the Gemini spec is dual-purpose, it describes the protocol, > and the text/gemini format. The current spec, while it is the "formal" spec, is intended to be rather informal (compared to other specs), and I suppose it was just easier to group them together at the time. > Whilst gemtext is the "native" format for Gemini (as HTML is to HTTP), > one isn't required for the other to work, they are two distinct > things. Something that should be emphasized more IMO, since people don't seem to understand this every time they suggest to add inline markup. > I think that they should be split into two specs, one for the protocol > and one for gemtext. I'm sure if Solderpunk ever pursues submitting it as a formal RFC (something that he was contemplating, but wanted to wait until the final spec freeze) then the IETF would help us formalize it and organize it more coherently. Using my knowledge of how RFCs are structured I'm fairly sure they would both be in one RFC but separated meaningfully. The current spec has gemtext separated, but the distinction could be made more clear. -- Alex // nytpu alex at nytpu.com GPG Key: https://www.nytpu.com/files/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint: 43A5 890C EE85 EA1F 8C88 9492 ECCD C07B 337B 8F5B https://useplaintext.email/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210223/d184 f6ef/attachment-0001.sig>
---
Previous in thread (2 of 10): 🗣️ David Emerson (d (a) nnix.com)
Next in thread (4 of 10): 🗣️ Côme Chilliet (come (a) chilliet.eu)