💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 007683.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 16:28:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Linde linde.philip at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 19:00:37 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:48:33 +0100Omar Polo <op at omarpolo.com> wrote:
(No, the outline of the transaction in 1.1 is not a formal description
of what each party should do, it's just an outline.)
Says who? It's part of the specification. There is nothing in thespecification itself that qualifies it as an informal hint. Given thatit's the only part of the specification that describes a completetransaction, I take it to be clearly specified that the client handlesa response after the server closes the connection. Meanwhile, there'snothing in the specification that remotely indicates that a clientshould render content while the server is streaming it.
On the contrary, there's a post by solderpunk himself where he describes
exactly that:
gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/users/solderpunk/gemlog/a-vision-for-gemini-applications.gmi
This perfectly exemplifies my point that it's easier to read aspecification than to go spelunking through gemlog posts to learn whatset of features I am currently expected to implement as a Geminiimplementor. What's extra funny is that you dismiss my references tothe specification as an informal part of it (with absolutely no basis)and at the same time you refer to a gemlog where that pretty much onlydocuments that Solderpunk thought the idea was cool at some point.
-- Philip-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 488 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20211213/2f4052a7/attachment.sig>