💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005577.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 17:18:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Oliver Simmons oliversimmo at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 17:58:03 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 14:36, aaronleonard <aaronleonard at risingthumb.xyz> wrote:
Only benefit seems to be to bots/softwares involving gemtext such as
clients, search engines or scrapers- and it would require creating a
standard for the metadata that someone would have to maintain, and
outreach to get people to adopt the standard in writing gemtexts and in
writing their clients- plus it encroaches a little bit on how long a
person should spend to write a gemini client of their own. That's a lot
of stuff just to have metadata that should be included as data in the
document.
As with most things in Gemini, this would be entirely optional.Either the =: or my format wouldn't take much longer to code intoclients, as they are both based on existing features and follow all ofGemtext's simplicity rules on line-by line etc.Outreach luckily isn't much of an issue - most of the people that willneed to know are on this mailing list, and if/once it is a thing itwill be documented.I don't understand your "maintaining" a standard point, it's astandard, it should not be changed once it's been decided on (exceptminor adjustments if required).
For the reasons above, I'm relatively indifferent to metadata but think
it's a fair lot of time to pursue(at least to the same degree as <meta>
tags have gone). Personally, if a person was to create and adopt a
standard, I'd use it if it's useful AND human-readable.
It should DEFINITElY be human-readable, Gemini (the protocol + textformat) is supposed to be a "human-style" thing.