💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 007710.gmi captured on 2024-02-05 at 10:28:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DJ Chase u9000 at posteo.mx
Wed Dec 15 00:37:33 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 23:48 +0100, Philip Linde wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:38:12 +0000, Krixano <krixano at protonmail.com> wrote:
Again, I was never against making the spec more explicit and up to par
with what was intended. What I am for is not judging implementations
for using an intended design of the protocol (even if it's not in the
spec!) when a spec isn't even final yet.
It's the document we have as a basis for writing clients. If it's
wrong, it's wrong. That can be fixed. But telling me that I should dig
through old gopher holes and mailing list archives just to get a sense
of Solderpunk's general opinion on streaming request responses, and
interpret that opinion as a canonical part of the standard is not a
viable basis for a standard.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Gemini's current state. Rightnow, there is no standard; we have a specification, but it is not yetstandardized. Yes, email archives and old phlogs is not a viable basisfor a standard. That is why the spec is being revised - so that it canbecome a standard without the previously-mentioned issues.
Cheers,-- DJ ChaseThey, Them, Theirs