💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000373.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 17:28:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Prior reading: => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, ?5.5 Advanced line types I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and three different whitespace handling verbiages for each. Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace. List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!) Quote lines: Start with ?>? Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing? Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+): - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes like Markdown does) - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or * - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant documents to match something like this. - - - - I could see myself wanting an H4-equivalent or higher, but I?m not certain this is _quite_ the right time to mention it. Also the current spec already seems to say that clients should parse ?#### Eggs? as not-a-heading.
Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> writes: > Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the > same phrasing? > > Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+): Fwiw, i support this. Lately i've been spending a lot of time and energy on format conversions, and the more consistent the syntax, the easier it is to parse, and the less i have to rely on kludgy heuristics. Alexis.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 07:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Galt wrote: > I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and three different whitespace handling verbiages for each. > > Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace. > List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!) > Quote lines: Start with ?>? > > Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing? I'm inclined to agree. > Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+): > > - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes like Markdown does) > - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or * > - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag > - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant documents to match something like this. Let's also consider the other way these three cases could have the same whitespace rules, which is to make that whitespace always optional rather than always required. Pros of all-optional whitespace: - Parsing is one step simpler than requiring at least one whitespace character. - Parsing is compatible with existing Gemtext. (I also think this is not that big of a deal, but let's list it.) Cons: - At the beginning of an intended plain text line, some common forms of expression like "*Foo*", "#Foo", and ">_<" would be interpreted as list items, headings, or quotations. ?and that's all I've got. Having thought through it, I think mandatory whitespace sounds like a better choice.
I agree with mandatory whitespace except for when quoting empty lines. Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> writes: > Prior reading: > > => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, ?5.5 Advanced line types > > I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and three different whitespace handling verbiages for each. > > Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace. > List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!) > Quote lines: Start with ?>? > > Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing? > > Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+): > > - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes like Markdown does) > - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or * > - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag > - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant documents to match something like this. > > - - - - > > I could see myself wanting an H4-equivalent or higher, but I?m not certain this is _quite_ the right time to mention it. Also the current spec already seems to say that clients should parse ?#### Eggs? as not-a-heading.
Ooh, good catch. Agreed. > On Sep 12, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Sandra Snan <sandra.snan at idiomdrottning.org> wrote: > > I agree with mandatory whitespace except for when quoting empty lines. > > Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> writes: > >> Prior reading: >> >> => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, ?5.5 Advanced line types >> >> I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and three different whitespace handling verbiages for each. >> >> Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace. >> List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!) >> Quote lines: Start with ?>? >> >> Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing? >> >> Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+): >> >> - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes like Markdown does) >> - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or * >> - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag >> - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant documents to match something like this. >> >> - - - - >> >> I could see myself wanting an H4-equivalent or higher, but I?m not certain this is _quite_ the right time to mention it. Also the current spec already seems to say that clients should parse ?#### Eggs? as not-a-heading. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20200912/3e3c 735c/attachment.htm>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 07:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Galt wrote: Hi! > Prior reading: > > => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, ?5.5 Advanced line types > > I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and three different whitespace handling verbiages for each. > > Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace. > List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!) > Quote lines: Start with ?>? > Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing? Correct me if i am wrong but we already discussed that in the mailing list? gemini://gemi.dev/gemini-mailing-list/messages/002312.gmi Bye! C.
---
Previous Thread: MacOS Gemini Client
Next Thread: [ANN] gemini.sublime-syntax v0.2.0, now with .mollyhead support