💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 006965.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 08:57:31. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alan gemini at bunburya.eu
Fri Jul 30 01:48:50 BST 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The justification I have seen for the status quo is that, currently, a client only needs to examine the first 3(?) characters of a line to determine its line type. That's quite elegant and makes it exceptionally easy to parse gemtext. This suggestion would break that feature and I'm not sure there is any real benefit to doing so.
What is the motivation here - is it to make gemtext a subset of markdown?
Alan
On 29/07/2021 23:57, Robert "khuxkm" Miles wrote:
July 28, 2021 4:42 PM, "Omar Polo" <op at omarpolo.com> wrote:
I think this was discussed before, but one of the core point of
text/gemini is the idea of line types: each line has a type and there
aren't inline objects.
They weren't asking for inline links (emphasis mine):
Rev. Fr. Robert Bower <frrobert at frrobert.com> writes:
-snip-
Would it not be advantageous for content creators for Gemini to support both the standard Gemini
syntax of =
for links and also support the []() markdown syntax for links, *limited to links on
their own line?*
-snip-
I, for one, think Gemini links are fine just the way they are, but it's food for thought.
Just my two cents,
Robert "khuxkm" Miles