💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 002668.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 02:57:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-09-24)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
meff meff at meff.me
Fri Sep 11 08:28:12 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For me, I see nothing wrong with Gemtext and HTML living side byside. This isn't a zero-sum game, as much as the Web wants us to thinkit is with its focus on hyperscale. As Stacy mentioned, Gemtext is greatfor content and not formatting. If you want formatting, then use HTML!
- meff
Stacy Harper <contact at stacyharper.net> writes:
Hello,
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:
I think if you want additions, just use WWW. Gemini focus on content and
not formating.
“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.”
Yes you can create cool website using some standard html tags and a
little bit of css. But Gemini choosed its own gmi format specially to
prevent some implementations to add this kind of cool features.
Thoughts? Counterarguments?
WWW decadence was fun, let's never do it again :)