💾 Archived View for gemini.bunburya.eu › newsgroups › gemini › messages › t73rav$ddm$1@gioia.aioe.or… captured on 2024-02-05 at 09:47:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-06-04)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: dunne <degrowther@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 01:34:23 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <t73rav$ddm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
On 2022-05-30, Sean Conner <spc@lucy.roswell.conman.org> wrote:
Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
> Are there efforts underway to standardize Gemini via IETF RFC?
If there is, it's flying way under the radar.
> Gemini the protocol and gemtext the file format are currently in a single
> specification. Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the
> edges as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago. I've read various
> opinions regarding TOFU and certificate change/renewal.. Embarking on the
> route to RFC could improve the specification without changing its
> simplicity.
>
> What's the sentiment regarding a clearer specification?
If my experience in Gemini is anything to go by, it's not going to happen.
Solderpunk has basically disappeared, and his appointed assistant resigned
after a few months. I'm not saying the project is dead, but further
clarifications of the protocol and text format probably is.
Is Solderpunk "in charge" beyond the fact that there was community consensus
that they were? Is there anything preventing from the community from saying,
"Solderpunk is MIA, we're going to figure out a new way to move forward without
a single person 'in charge'"?
--d
Parent:
Start of thread:
Intend to standardize via RFC? (by Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> on Mon, 30 May 2022 02:49:03 -0000 (UTC))
Children:
Re: Intend to standardize via RFC? (by mbays@sdf.org on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:52:20 GMT)