💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 006963.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Omar Polo op at omarpolo.com
Wed Jul 28 21:42:49 BST 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rev. Fr. Robert Bower <frrobert at frrobert.com> writes:
This is an idea I have pondered for awhile and the deurbanizing thread got me thinking about it again.
Gemini document syntax in many ways uses a subset of markdown. The exception being the syntax for links.
Would it not be advantageous for content creators for Gemini to support both the standard Gemini syntax of =
for links and also support the []() markdown syntax for links, limited to links on their own line?
I also think it would be great if markdown also supported both syntaxes.
I am picturing a set of documents that could be delivered via Gemini as Gemini documents or delivered as markdown documents which then could be viewed as html or pdf.
This may just be crazy but I thought I would throw it out there.
I think this was discussed before, but one of the core point oftext/gemini is the idea of line types: each line has a type and therearen't inline objects.
It's weird at first, but after a while it becomes better than inlinelinks IMHO. Yes, one needs to adjust the style of the writing becausecluttering the paragraphs of [0], ¹, etc isn't that great. This articlemakes some good points in that regard:
gemini://idiomdrottning.org/re-why-u-no-gemini
Said that, this doesn't stop you from serving markdown, pdfs or anythingelse over gemini. Just call your file .md instead of .gmi and useinline links etc...
HTH