💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000483.gmi captured on 2023-11-04 at 12:51:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello, I made a static site generator for Gemini sites. Currently, it supports the following: - Go templating - Generating Gemini feeds - Optionally outputting your site as HTML You can find it at https://sr.ht/~adnano/kiln Enjoy!
Hey Adnan, I've just downloaded and gave it a go, it looks like a good option for me to avoid duplicating my blog on the web and the content I want to post to my capsule. But I've run into a bit of a snag, since my choice of Gemini server doesn't redirect /dir to /dir/ so I'm getting errors on the gemini content.? Is there a way to change that in the output for kiln ?? I imagine I'm missing something obvious in the template file... Thanks ! -K?vin Le 20/11/2020 ? 21:07, Adnan Maolood a ?crit?: > Hello, > > I made a static site generator for Gemini sites. > Currently, it supports the following: > > - Go templating > - Generating Gemini feeds > - Optionally outputting your site as HTML > > You can find it at https://sr.ht/~adnano/kiln > > Enjoy!
I also had this problem and I updated the template directly to add the trailing slash. Should probably be fixed upstream in .Path though. Love this project BTW. Just updated from about a month ago. Everything I was having friction with before is resolved! I'm curious if the standard for .gmi feeds is published and if I can still create an atom.xml? - talon ??????? Original Message ??????? On Friday, November 20, 2020 6:55 PM, K?vin <gemini at mmn.name> wrote: > Hey Adnan, > > I've just downloaded and gave it a go, it looks like a good option for > me to avoid duplicating my blog on the web and the content I want to > post to my capsule. > > But I've run into a bit of a snag, since my choice of Gemini server > doesn't redirect /dir to /dir/ so I'm getting errors on the gemini > content.? Is there a way to change that in the output for kiln ?? I > imagine I'm missing something obvious in the template file... > > Thanks ! > > -K?vin > > Le 20/11/2020 ? 21:07, Adnan Maolood a ?crit?: > > > Hello, > > I made a static site generator for Gemini sites. > > Currently, it supports the following: > > > > - Go templating > > - Generating Gemini feeds > > - Optionally outputting your site as HTML > > > > You can find it at https://sr.ht/~adnano/kiln > > Enjoy!
Le 21/11/2020 ? 03:05, Talon a ?crit?: > I also had this problem and I updated the template directly to add the > > trailing slash. Should probably be fixed upstream in .Path though. I knew it was something obvious, I think I over complicated by fix and made it barf everywhere with errors, but it's now sorted, thanks ! > Love this project BTW. Just updated from about a month ago. Honestly, same here it's everything I've been looking for but never realise I've needed until now. -K?vin
On Fri Nov 20, 2020 at 9:05 PM EST, Talon wrote: > I also had this problem and I updated the template directly to add the > trailing slash. Should probably be fixed upstream in .Path though. > Love this project BTW. Just updated from about a month ago. > Everything I was having friction with before is resolved! I'm curious > if the standard for .gmi feeds is published and if I can still create > an atom.xml? The Gemini feed standard was discussed on the mailing list a few days ago. I removed support for atom feeds in the last update, but if it's a popular request then I can add them back.
> I removed support for atom feeds in the last update, but if it's a > popular request then I can add them back. Definitely you should add it back! I don't see Atom feeds going anyway any time soon, especially since the Gemini feed is only an idea and not standardized yet. Even when it is, Atom is still useful. I don't see why there's any need to remove it. Cool project! Cheers, makeworld
On Sat Nov 21, 2020 at 6:57 PM CET, wrote: > > I removed support for atom feeds in the last update, but if it's a > > popular request then I can add them back. > > Definitely you should add it back! I don't see Atom feeds going anyway > any time soon, especially since the Gemini feed is only an idea and not > standardized yet. Even when it is, Atom is still useful. I don't see > why there's any need to remove it. This is correct! The new lightweight feed idea is *not* supposed to replace Atom, which is considerably more powerful and flexible. The idea is simply to make it possible to subscribe to even very simple static gemlogs which are maintained by hand, so people are not forced to choose between tedious handwriting of XML, running fragile scripts which attempt to guess a post's timestamp from the filesystem metadata (which is too easily changed by accident) or the filename (which encourages longer, uglier URLs), or running a CMS or static site generator (which they might perceive as over-complicated or over-opinionated), just to make sure people are able to follow their writing. If a site *is* being generated by a CMS or static site generator, there's no reason for it not to provide Atom feeds. Cheers, Solderpunk
On Sun Nov 22, 2020 at 1:04 PM EST, Solderpunk wrote: > On Sat Nov 21, 2020 at 6:57 PM CET, wrote: > > > I removed support for atom feeds in the last update, but if it's a > > > popular request then I can add them back. > > > > Definitely you should add it back! I don't see Atom feeds going anyway > > any time soon, especially since the Gemini feed is only an idea and not > > standardized yet. Even when it is, Atom is still useful. I don't see > > why there's any need to remove it. > > This is correct! The new lightweight feed idea is *not* supposed to > replace Atom, which is considerably more powerful and flexible. The > idea is simply to make it possible to subscribe to even very simple > static gemlogs which are maintained by hand, so people are not forced to > choose between tedious handwriting of XML, running fragile scripts which > attempt to guess a post's timestamp from the filesystem metadata (which > is too easily changed by accident) or the filename (which encourages > longer, uglier URLs), or running a CMS or static site generator (which > they might perceive as over-complicated or over-opinionated), just to > make sure people are able to follow their writing. > > If a site *is* being generated by a CMS or static site generator, > there's no reason for it not to provide Atom feeds. > > Cheers, > Solderpunk Okay, I will go ahead and re-implement them. Question: is it okay for Atom feeds to use relative URLs instead of absolute URLs? That would make it easier to have a feed that works over Gemini and HTML. It would also make generating the feed simpler.
It was thus said that the Great Adnan Maolood once stated: > On Sun Nov 22, 2020 at 1:04 PM EST, Solderpunk wrote: > > On Sat Nov 21, 2020 at 6:57 PM CET, wrote: > > > > I removed support for atom feeds in the last update, but if it's a > > > > popular request then I can add them back. > > > > > > Definitely you should add it back! I don't see Atom feeds going anyway > > > any time soon, especially since the Gemini feed is only an idea and not > > > standardized yet. Even when it is, Atom is still useful. I don't see > > > why there's any need to remove it. > > > > This is correct! The new lightweight feed idea is *not* supposed to > > replace Atom, which is considerably more powerful and flexible. The > > idea is simply to make it possible to subscribe to even very simple > > static gemlogs which are maintained by hand, so people are not forced to > > choose between tedious handwriting of XML, running fragile scripts which > > attempt to guess a post's timestamp from the filesystem metadata (which > > is too easily changed by accident) or the filename (which encourages > > longer, uglier URLs), or running a CMS or static site generator (which > > they might perceive as over-complicated or over-opinionated), just to > > make sure people are able to follow their writing. > > > > If a site *is* being generated by a CMS or static site generator, > > there's no reason for it not to provide Atom feeds. > > > > Cheers, > > Solderpunk > > Okay, I will go ahead and re-implement them. > > Question: is it okay for Atom feeds to use relative URLs instead of > absolute URLs? That would make it easier to have a feed that works over > Gemini and HTML. It would also make generating the feed simpler. Yes, but you can also have multiple <link> elements per entry. From my own Atom feed: <entry> <id>tag:boston.conman.org,2020-11-22:/2020/11/22.1</id> <title type="text">All I wanted was a surreal email conversation with a confused recipient</title> <updated>2020-11-22T03:35:05-05:00</updated> <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" hreflang="en-US" href="http://boston.conman.org/2020/11/22.1" /> <link rel="alternate" type="text/gemini" hreflang="en-US" href="gemini://gemini.conman.org/boston/2020/11/22.1" /> <link rel="alternate" type="text/plain" hreflang="en-US" href="gopher://gopher.conman.org/0Phlog:/2020/11/22.1" /> <content type="html">...</content> </entry> There can be only one <content> tag, so you'll have to decide if you want this to contain HTML or plain text (it is also optional). -spc
---