💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005676.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 09:56:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stephane Bortzmeyer stephane at sources.org
Fri Feb 26 11:53:49 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:16:52AM +0100, Omar Polo <op at omarpolo.com> wrote a message of 161 lines which said:
As things stands, I know I can
cat file1.gmi file2.gmi ...
result.gmi
and obtain a valid text/gemini file.
One of the things missing in the current specification is a formalgrammar of gemtext, so there is currently no way to know if lines mustend with a end-of-line or is the end-of-file sufficient.
=
gemini://gemini.bortzmeyer.org/gemini/missing-eol.gmi Example
Amfora and Lagrange seem to accept the last line (the one without anend-of-line). But your example with cat would break it, concateningthe last line of the first file with the first line of the second file.
Also, the examples you gave in support of your proposals seems bogus
too. Serving a mailing list archive over Gemini? Cool, but why convert
the mails to text/gemini? Wrapping them in ``` (with headers visible)
or serving them "raw" is not enough?
Because humans (specially non-anglosaxon humans) have trouble with"From", "Subject" and "Message-ID"?
If we want to build a better GUS I don't think that adding metadata
to text/gemini will solve anything, it will actually make things
worst. The point is, you can't trust 3rd-parties metadata. [...]
people will abuse the metadata to "go up" in the search results, and
the outcome of that is crystal-clear on the Web,
I'm not convinced by this "look at the SEO mess" argument. Gemini isnot the Web, there is no money at stake, marketing people and salesmenfrown upon Gemini ("what, no pictures? No tracking?") so I reallydoubt that many people would resort to dirty tricks just to be higherin GUS' results.