💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 002669.gmi captured on 2020-10-31 at 14:41:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-09-24)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sean Conner sean at conman.org
Fri Sep 11 08:29:58 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It was thus said that the Great Nathan Galt once stated:
There’s a persistent worry on other threads that Gemini might become “too
complex”, for some definition of “complex”.
This is a reasonable worry, considering the very complicated mess we’re
all running from.
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?
It's one of the anti-Gemini arguments I've seen on sites like Hacker News(https://news.ycombinator.com)---why not just use a stripped down HTML andwebservers that do what you want? And yes, there is something to thatagument, but solderpunk has made it clear he doesn't want any crack thatwill lead to the current web (and personally, I would love it if the"application web" went via QUIC and the "original hypertext web" stayed onTCP).
The problem I see with gemtext (and having been on the mailing list fromthe beginning, way over half the messages have been about the gemtextformat) is that people *want* their HTML, but it's mostly different subsetsof HTML. About the only agreement is the absence of Javascript.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the gemtext format as I find it restrictivein a way that I don't find plain text or HTML, but it is what it is. All Ido is put up pages with the proposed specification and see if there arecomplaints (and there were---oh the surprise).
Again, if you want formatting, HTML and Markdown are there for you to useon Gemini.
-spc