💾 Archived View for gemini.bunburya.eu › newsgroups › gemini › messages › vs2adi-543.ln1@iapetus.dgo… captured on 2023-05-24 at 18:20:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-04-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: Daniel Goldsmith <dgold@dgold.invalid>
Subject: Re: Gemini markup extensions [Was: Re: a solution for emphasis]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:05:19 +0000
Message-ID: <vs2adi-543.ln1@iapetus.dgold.eu>
On 2022-02-08, Martin <martin@datapulp.de> wrote:
My personal opinion would be, that having somewhat agreed markup would
lead to less use of abusing special unicode characters for fulfilling
this obvious need. So it would help people using a screenreader. Also it
would not end an a chaos of different own ideas.
Oh, very much this. Using unicode chars is the inverse of what I always
understood to be the purpose of gemini. The use of a "magic string" to denote
a link was specifically chosen to avoid the issue of non-standard characters
having impact on the protocol, your ability to write it, and your ability to
read it.
Having said that, and _pace_ the question of accessibility, I'm coming to the
conclusion that some form of acceptance of the two primary span elements,
<em> and <strong>, need to inform future development in the gemini protocol.
They are necessary for all sorts of reasons (inline quotes, titles of books,
plays, music, for poetry), there is a clear demand for them, they are being
clear and unambiguous advantages for those using screenreaders.
I don't know what shape they should take, but I'd note that newsreaders have
been doing this for a not insignificant period, using essentially the same
characters as markdown.
--
dgold <news@dgold.eu>
Parent:
Start of thread:
a solution for emphasis (by Gustaf Erikson <gerikson@gmial.com> on Sat, 05 Feb 2022 00:13:15 +0100)
Children: