💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 006969.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 08:57:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rev. Fr. Robert Bower frrobert at frrobert.com
Fri Jul 30 20:37:26 BST 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My thought in having a common link syntax is authors could create content that could be delivered via gemini or html with no need to do conversion. In fact both servers could use a common set of documents.
On July 29, 2021 8:48:50 PM EDT, Alan <gemini at bunburya.eu> wrote:
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
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.