On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 14:36, aaronleonard <aaronleonard at risingthumb.xyz> wrote: > > Only benefit seems to be to bots/softwares involving gemtext such as > clients, search engines or scrapers- and it would require creating a > standard for the metadata that someone would have to maintain, and > outreach to get people to adopt the standard in writing gemtexts and in > writing their clients- plus it encroaches a little bit on how long a > person should spend to write a gemini client of their own. That's a lot > of stuff just to have metadata that should be included as data in the > document. > As with most things in Gemini, this would be entirely optional. Either the =: or my format wouldn't take much longer to code into clients, as they are both based on existing features and follow all of Gemtext's simplicity rules on line-by line etc. Outreach luckily isn't much of an issue - most of the people that will need to know are on this mailing list, and if/once it is a thing it will be documented. I don't understand your "maintaining" a standard point, it's a standard, it should not be changed once it's been decided on (except minor adjustments if required). > > For the reasons above, I'm relatively indifferent to metadata but think > it's a fair lot of time to pursue(at least to the same degree as <meta> > tags have gone). Personally, if a person was to create and adopt a > standard, I'd use it if it's useful AND human-readable. > It should DEFINITElY be human-readable, Gemini (the protocol + text format) is supposed to be a "human-style" thing.
---
Previous in thread (51 of 99): 🗣️ PJ vM (pjvm742 (a) disroot.org)
Next in thread (53 of 99): 🗣️ Oliver Simmons (oliversimmo (a) gmail.com)