💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 004055.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 16:50:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alex // nytpu alex at nytpu.com
Tue Dec 15 01:48:26 GMT 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I physically cannot create content on gemini without the ability toinsert ascii art of a rabbit arbitrarily in gemtext. I *demand* thatgemtext be amended to support both inline and standalone rabbitsposthaste. There is no humanly possible way for me to ever make anythingon gemini until this is implemented. It's not like I could be outwriting meaningful content on gemini instead of writing incessant emailsto the list, that's crazy talk.
The proposal:A inline rabbit is indicated with the unicode string U+003a U+0072U+0430 U+0062 U+0062 U+0069 U+03a4 U+003a (":rаbbiΤ:") appearinganywhere on the line. Even though it is literally impossible for themajority of users to type, who really types text out manually anymore?Copying and pasting is the future.
A "standalone" rabbit is delimited by the unicode string U+003b U+0072U+0430 U+0062 U+0069 U+03a4 U+003b (";rаbbiΤ;") appearing on it's ownline. Why is it different from an inline rabbit? Well gemtext isn'tdesigned to be easy to parse, it's not the spec writers' job to make iteasier on the developers. I've never ever written useful gemini softwaremyself, so it's not like it bothers me anyways!
What do you mean I can use stuff that already exists in gemini to addascii art of rabbits? The preformatted text block was really ambiguous(i.e. I couldn't understand it), as it doesn't explain what"preformatted" means, and I couldn't be bothered to look at the firstresult on any search engine to find the meaning. Since I just don't likethe existing options, this MUST be implemented by all clientsimmediately and the existing preformatted text toggles MUST be removedfrom all implementations, because I never use them which means they areuseless.
Before you go crying with your worthless arguments like "it doesn'tprovide provide enough benefit to justify the technical and manpowercost of implementing it," it is important to not look at the technicalaspects of this. You're not supposed to look at the technicalconsiderations of implementing something when amending a fundamentallytechnical internet protocol's formal specification, instead you shouldlook at the morals of it. On that front, if solderpunk doesn'timmediately add this change to the spec that means that he isdiscriminating against everyone that likes rabbits, and that anyone whogives well reasoned arguments on why this is a bad change will be judgedthe same as hitler in the history books. Don't believe me? Look at thisrandom article that isn't even related to my argument in all but themost surface level:https://www.nytpu.com/files/really-really-really-really-really-really-long-url.html
An important thing to note before replying:If anyone disagrees with me, instead of providing well reasonedcounterarguments I will instead resort to repeating already refutedarguments, ad hominem, and by moving the goalposts. I will alsodeliberately misunderstand and ignore your argument to make it easierfor me to strawman.
-- Alex // nytpualex at nytpu.comGPG Key: https://www.nytpu.com/files/pubkey.ascKey fingerprint: 43A5 890C EE85 EA1F 8C88 9492 ECCD C07B 337B 8F5Bhttps://useplaintext.email/-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: signature.ascType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 833 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201214/9c7d3558/attachment.sig>