💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005541.gmi captured on 2021-11-30 at 19:37:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Oliver Simmons oliversimmo at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 20:25:38 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 19:29, David Emerson <d at nnix.com> wrote:
Though I agree with the principle, and it would make a lot of sense in many larger projects, binding the protocol tightly to the content is appropriate at this scale and for this purpose. Unlike many projects which anticipate substantial sprawl, and welcome that effect, the Gemini spec aims to avoid becoming easily contaminated with features, an intentional constraint.
I'm no zealot here, but I do find the cleanliness and constraint refreshing.
The protocol and content aren't bound tightly in any way, Gemtext isthe default and is in the same document, that's all.Splitting the documents wouldn't change anything, and I don't wantanything to change as Gemtext is really nice, I just thought it wouldmake sense to have them split.