💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000145.gmi captured on 2024-06-16 at 12:41:37. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hey! It just came to me that the specification for gemini is actually two specifications intermixed, making it hard to work on only one of the two components. I propose to split the specification into either two documents or a single document with a clear separation between text/gemini and the gemini protocol. This shouldn't change anything semantic-wise, but makes working with the specifications easier as i don't have to skip-read over all text/gemini stuff when writing the protocol implementation itself and vice-versa. If that's already planned for one day: Cool, looking forward to that! If not: Please consider to separate these two parts, even if they are pretty close related Regards - xq
+1 ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday 25 May 2020 13:54, Felix Quei?ner <felix at masterq32.de> wrote: > Hey! > > It just came to me that the specification for gemini is actually two > specifications intermixed, making it hard to work on only one of the two > components. > > I propose to split the specification into either two documents or a > single document with a clear separation between text/gemini and the > gemini protocol. > > This shouldn't change anything semantic-wise, but makes working with the > specifications easier as i don't have to skip-read over all text/gemini > stuff when writing the protocol implementation itself and vice-versa. > > If that's already planned for one day: Cool, looking forward to that! > If not: Please consider to separate these two parts, even if they are > pretty close related > > Regards > > - xq
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:54:55PM +0200, Felix Quei?ner wrote: > I propose to split the specification into either two documents or a > single document with a clear separation between text/gemini and the > gemini protocol. Yeah, this makes sense. I hadn't really thought about it, but the text/gemini spec is kind of smack bang in the middle of the other stuff. I still think it's a good idea to have everything in one place, but some rearrangement would not hurt. I will try to do this tonight. Cheers, Solderpunk
> Yeah, this makes sense. I hadn't really thought about it, but the > text/gemini spec is kind of smack bang in the middle of the other stuff. Yeah, it's not always obvious when working a long time on some stuff. All relevant information is there, but there is stuff added and removed and one misses the bigger picture sometimes. > I still think it's a good idea to have everything in one place, but some > rearrangement would not hurt. I will try to do this tonight. Nice, thanks! Regards - xq
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:12:26PM +0200, Felix Quei?ner wrote: > > I still think it's a good idea to have everything in one place, but some > > rearrangement would not hurt. I will try to do this tonight. > Nice, thanks! I just made this change, moving the definition of text/gemini into its own section at the end of the spec (but before the appendix listing all status codes), so that all of the protocol stuff is contiguous. While I was at it, I fixed the ridiculous section numbering scheme. Literally everything was a subsection of a single top-level section! Talk about nuts. So most things that were 1.x.y.z became just x.y.z. All the text/gemini stuff got moved to its own dedicated section 5, so the deepest level of nesting is also now one level less than it was before. This is a big overall improvement in readability and citeability. Thanks a lot for suggesting it. Cheers, Solderpunk
> This is a big overall improvement in readability and citeability. > Thanks a lot for suggesting it. This IS a big improvement! A small additional idea - would you be open to hosting a `text/gemini` version? I can definitely see the merit of the `text/plain` version, for maximum ease of distribution, so maybe this is just asking for trouble to host two versions, but I do feel at this point in Gemini, most folks are probably consuming the Gemini spec in a Gemini browser, within which readability would be substantially enhanced by even just the addition of a bit of the usual client header line handling (would you look at that, Gemini supports three levels of it, and now we only
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:18:34PM -0400, Natalie Pendragon wrote: > A small additional idea - would you be open to hosting a `text/gemini` > version? I can definitely see the merit of the `text/plain` version, > for maximum ease of distribution, so maybe this is just asking for > trouble to host two versions, but I do feel at this point in Gemini, > most folks are probably consuming the Gemini spec in a Gemini browser, > within which readability would be substantially enhanced by even just > the addition of a bit of the usual client header line handling (would > you look at that, Gemini supports three levels of it, and now we only > *have* three levels of it in the spec :). Yes, I'd like to do this! I've been meaning to write some quick little scripts to convert text/gemini to text/plain (mostly just a matter of wrapping to 80 columns) and to text/html, so I can move to maintaining the spec, FAQ, etc. in text/gemini and automate the mirroring to Gopher and HTTPS. It will happen one day! :) Cheers, Solderpunk PS: Or has somebody already written these tools?
---