💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 007307.gmi captured on 2024-02-05 at 10:46:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions

Pete D. peteyboy at sdf.org

Fri Oct 15 20:12:27 BST 2021

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Message: 3

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:56:32 -0600

From: Alex // nytpu <alex at nytpu.com>

To: Gemini Mailing List <gemini at lists.orbitalfox.eu>

Subject: Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions

Message-ID: <20211014155632.tcepvij3ofsv27cw at GLaDOS.local>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Just to clarify, the reason there's a debate raised at all about spaces

or not is that some of the line types have a required space, and the

rest have optional spaces. The inconsistency is confusing (as you've

demonstrated), so it'd be better to either make all the lines have a

required space, or make all the lines have optional spaces. Just in my

own personal opinion on Gemtext style I think it'd be better to make

them all have mandatory spaces.

~nytpu

This is on purpose to address instances where folks may have text-style emphasis on a word, starting a line with *bold*, and it was pointed out that this would insert an unwanted unordered list--this could be for existing gopher text files, or for folks trying to add emphasis in their gemtext (since there is no inline emphasis). By requiring the space, it ameliorates that potential problem. So it's not different just to be inconsistent, there's a reason behind it. And the reason the other ones weren't changed was to allow the 'freedom' part, if it's not MUST then it's MAY.