Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which can be used several times in each paragraph of text as a switch that was initially turned off. Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. Now I throw this message into space. ? Roberto Soccoli Telegram me: @Roberto_Soccoli
I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. People are of course free to write their own clients that do their own processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. -- Typed on a tiny keyboard. Sorry for being terse. > On 1 Nov 2021, at 12:04, Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> wrote: > > ? > Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. > I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which can be used several times in each paragraph of text as a switch that was initially turned off. > Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. > Now I throw this message into space. ? > > Roberto Soccoli > Telegram me: @Roberto_Soccoli >
On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. Also, that's not line-oriented. > People are of course free to write their own clients that do their own > processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or > HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. Side note: I think it's best to serve PDFs instead of other markup languages because everyone can view PDFs. Many people don't have a markdown viewer/compiler installed, and serving HTML is, in my opinion, overkill for Gemini. -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
On Mon Nov 1, 2021 at 2:35 PM GMT, DJ Chase wrote: > On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > > I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. > > Also, that's not line-oriented. > > > People are of course free to write their own clients that do their own > > processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or > > HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. > > Side note: I think it's best to serve PDFs instead of other markup > languages because everyone can view PDFs. I'd say serving PDFs would be the grand overkill. PDFs have their own purpose, built for print. > Many people don't have a markdown viewer/compiler installed, and > serving HTML is, in my opinion, overkill for Gemini. Who's to say installing a Gemini client shouldn't come with a dependency like a CommomMark compiler or similar? Even if there are different Markdown standards, the differences are minimal and circumventable. I can imagine a dropdown menu with a selection of Markdown "flavours". One should also not limit our imagination to what currently exists. Perhaps in a typical desktop application suite, a markdown viewer should be included, and we should make a community effort to make that normal. > DJ Chase > They, Them, Theirs
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:42 PM Alex Schroeder <alex at alexschroeder.ch> wrote: > > I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. People are of course free to write their own clients that do their own processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. HTML with embedded Flash content, it's even better. HTML has always been a failure, it has been written by corporations that want the possibility to load any proprietary "binary" in a document. Not to mention Javascript. -- Benjamin Henrion (zoobab) Email: zoobab at gmail.com Mobile: +32-484-566109 Web: http://www.zoobab.com FFII.org Brussels "In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy. Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or democratically elected legislators."
It was thus said that the Great Byron Torres once stated: > On Mon Nov 1, 2021 at 2:35 PM GMT, DJ Chase wrote: > > > Many people don't have a markdown viewer/compiler installed, and > > serving HTML is, in my opinion, overkill for Gemini. > > Who's to say installing a Gemini client shouldn't come with a dependency > like a CommomMark compiler or similar? Even if there are different > Markdown standards, the differences are minimal and circumventable. I > can imagine a dropdown menu with a selection of Markdown "flavours". RFC-7763 and RFC-7764 describe text/markdown and the various permutations currently defined. -spc
If you think of ?highlight? as bolding, then ? At least for the alphabet we commonly associate with English, Unicode has bold versions of those characters: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? If you are writing English, you could use those characters. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. cikrempeaux at gmail.com On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 4:04 AM Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> wrote: > Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. > I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which can be used > several times in each paragraph of text as a switch that was initially > turned off. > Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. > Now I throw this message into space. ? > > Roberto Soccoli > Telegram me: @Roberto_Soccoli > >
I understand that bold versions of Unicode characters can be used. Noting that what I ask for is already used without a formal method, I communicate the method now implemented to you. It is not necessary to insert it in the protocol even if it seems to me a Gemini-style addition. To normalize the use of the inline "*" tag, which I call "highlighted", I propose that it can be used several times in each line, after the other tags, as an initially off switch. Each client will be able to interpret it at will, even if it normally puts it in bold. Roberto Soccoli ??????? Original Message ??????? Il mercoled? 3 novembre 2021 06:58, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux at gmail.com> ha scritto: > If you think of ?highlight? as bolding, then ? > > At least for the alphabet we commonly associate with English, Unicode has bold versions of those characters: > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > If you are writing English, you could use those characters. > > -- > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > cikrempeaux at gmail.com > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 4:04 AM Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> wrote: > >> Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. >> I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which can be used several times in each paragraph of text as a switch that was initially turned off. >> Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. >> Now I throw this message into space. ? >> >> Roberto Soccoli >> Telegram me: @Roberto_Soccoli
> ?, ? Those are *mathematical* bold letters, and shouldn't be used in place of "A" as they're semantically different, they're not just a stylistic variation. You wouldn't use "?" in place of "U", would you? ;) -- dalz
I know ? but I think there is a tendency for semantic elements to eventually become (defacto) style elements. ? The sense I have of this is ? Regular people don't care whether these were originally for mathematics or not ? they look like bold versions of characters. And a number of people are already using them as such. (There are even online tools to help people use them.) ? If Unicode doesn't come up with a semantically ?pure? convention for bolding ? people will just use these. And it isn't like we haven't been through this before. Back in the day when terminals were common, some of them extended the set of control codes (beyond those that came with the character set), to include bolding. For example ? \e[1m ? Also ? We (in this community) are doing semantically ?impure? things too. Unicode has more than one symbol for making bullet lists ? For example U+2022 ???. Yet when we write Gemtext we use the asterisk (U+002A ?*?) for the bullet in the bullet list item. And I know this didn't start with Gemtext, and it is an old convention. But we are continuing it. ? And yes, I know, not everyone's keyboards can easily generate U+2022. But some people's can. Mine can. And (if that is a concern) U+2022 could have been a permitted Gemtext bullet list symbol (in addition to the asterisk). ? If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than symbol ? then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical characters? On Wed, Nov 3, 2021, 1:38 AM dalz <gemini at alsd.eu> wrote: > > ?, ? > > Those are *mathematical* bold letters, and shouldn't be used in place > of "A" as they're semantically different, they're not just a stylistic > variation. You wouldn't use "?" in place of "U", would you? ;) > > -- > dalzu >
3 Nov 2021 09:23:33 Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux at gmail.com>: > I know ? but I think there is a tendency for semantic elements to eventually become (defacto) style elements. > > ? > > The sense I have of this is ? > > Regular people don't care whether these were originally for mathematics or not ? they look like bold versions of characters. And a number of people are already using them as such. (There are even online tools to help people use them.) > > If Unicode doesn't come up with a semantically ?pure? convention for bolding ? people will just use these. That's the kind of attitude that made HTML the semantic/presentational spaghetti it is today. We ought to separate semantics from presentation where possible. > And it isn't like we haven't been through this before. > > Back in the day when terminals were common, some of them extended the set of control codes (beyond those that came with the character set), to include bolding. > > For example ? > > \e[1m > > ? Isn't that a counter example? Control characters are not printable characters. > Also ? > > We (in this community) are doing semantically ?impure? things too. > > Unicode has more than one symbol for making bullet lists ? > > For example?U+2022 ???. > ? > Yet when we write Gemtext we use the asterisk (U+002A ?*?) for the bullet in the bullet list item. > > And I know this didn't start with Gemtext, and it is an old convention. But we are continuing it. > > ? > > And yes, I know, not everyone's keyboards can easily generate U+2022. But some people's can. Mine can. And (if that is a concern) U+2022?could have been a permitted Gemtext bullet list symbol (in addition to the asterisk). > > ? > > If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than symbol ? then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical characters? Gentext is a markup language. It's not supposed to be an exact one-to-one correlation to the resulting presentation. The characters each have a purpose in the Gemtext context. The mathematical characters are mathematical, in whatever context. We, as you touched upon, use '*' because its ASCII, which is the most universal character set and therefore accessible for everyone. It would not be smart to include Unicode core syntax. That's why most programming languages' core syntaxes use ASCII. Otherwise, we'd all be writing in APL-like languages.
TL;DR : I could bring up any number of straw-man arguments, but those are not useful. The actual argument is as follows. Unicode mathematical characters used as if they were normal characters, just in a fancier font is just plain rude to multiple groups of people, some of whom the gemini specification explicitly recommends accommodating. Hello, I actually have some knowledge that is relevant here. > ... > Regular people don't care whether these were originally for mathematics > or not ? they look like bold versions of characters. And a number of > people are already using them as such. (There are even online tools to > help people use them.) > ... This is true. However, as things currently stand, this is not a good thing. The reason is simple: not everyone looks at screens. Screen readers exist. If I remember correctly, screen readers are actually explicitly mentioned in the gemtext specification, in the context of alt ext for ascii art in preformatted blocs. One could say, the gemini protocol was designed with text-to-speech systems in mind as well as screens. Currently, espeak reads "?, ?" as "letter 1d400, letter 1d5d4". This is worse than putting a clapping hand emoji between every other word, as that at least leaves the words intact. While it is doubtless possible to write a screen reader that reads these mathematical symbols as if they were not mathematical symbols, for this change to be accepted would require *almost every screen reader on the market* to make this change. Also, what if the character is actually being used in the original context? Say someone wrote down an equation, using these symbols, and didn't note down multiplication? How would a screen reader recognise it as a mathematical context, not formatting? And even if you are willing to intentionally/neglectfully exclude those with eyesight worse than yours, the fact remains that searching for this text would simply not work on most computers, using the most common algorithms. Then there's the whole issue of older hardware, with limited or non-existent Unicode support. Expecting everyone to just use a specific set of characters from a relatively modern encoding, when some people are working on getting a functional gemini client working on hardware my father used as a child (slight exaggeration may exist) is just asking for trouble. > > If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the > back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than > symbol ? then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical > characters? > I personally don't recall the pound symbol having any meaning in gemini, I'll have to look through the spec again. However! I have a multi-part answer: - tradition: For most of these old symbols, the "original" meaning is no longer used. Even where it is, alternate meanings are common, and well understood. These new symbols still hold their original meaning. - legibility: If someone sees a couple of lines beginning with an asterisk, it is pretty obvious they are bullet points. A screen reader might read them out, in which case they work as audible bullet points, or not, in which case the actual sentences should be entirely understandable. While an individual with a Unicode-supporting font and fully functioning eyes will understand the intended meaning behind these characters, lose any of these, and the entire word is gone, either turned into tofu, or into gibberish. With no disrespect intended, Babiak.
Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux at gmail.com> writes: > I know ? but I think there is a tendency for semantic elements > to eventually become > (defacto) style elements. > > ? > > The sense I have of this is ? > > Regular people don't care whether these were originally for > mathematics or not ? > they look like bold versions of characters. And a number of > people are already using > them as such. (There are even online tools to help people use > them.) They are, and that's a significant accessibility issue. As i wrote elsewhere: > The use of various Unicode graphemes in an attempt to create the > effect of using a different font (something i frequently > encounter online) can be really shit for those who have to use > screenreaders. For example, "??" will probably not be read out > to them as "hi", but as "MATHEMATICAL SYMBOL FRAKTUR SMALL H > MATHEMATICAL SYMBOL FRAKTUR SMALL I". So, sure, if people care more about style than about making their text accessible to a variety of people, that's their choice. But i'd really prefer that geminispace avoid, for as long as possible, the style-over-substance road that the Web has taken. Alexis.
Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux at gmail.com> writes:
> At least for the alphabet we commonly associate with English, Unicode
> has bold versions of those characters:
It's recommended that you not use these (or other Unicode variants of
normal letters) in regular text???they are generally not handled in a
friendly or useful way by screen readers. There are contexts where using
them is a reasonable trade-off, but I'd say that emphasis in regular
text is not one of those contexts.
--
Jason McBrayer | ?Strange is the night where black stars rise,
jmcbray at carcosa.net | and strange moons circle through the skies,
| but stranger still is lost Carcosa.?
| ? Robert W. Chambers,The King in Yellow
Do we have to go PDF? Oh dear God. Okay if they're textual in nature, sure. But you know someone is gonna start uploading scans. I mean people can do that in HTML kinda, but thankfully it's harder to do. Devin Prater r.d.t.prater at gmail.com On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:35 AM DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx> wrote: > On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > > I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. > > Also, that's not line-oriented. > > > People are of course free to write their own clients that do their own > > processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or > > HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. > > Side note: I think it's best to serve PDFs instead of other markup > languages because everyone can view PDFs. Many people don't have a > markdown viewer/compiler installed, and serving HTML is, in my opinion, > overkill for Gemini. > > -- > DJ Chase > They, Them, Theirs > >
I'm reminded of the guy that went 'the internet is shit. return to PDF' and everyone else just 'PDF is terrible for a long list of reasons.' So I ask now the same question as then without further rhetoric. 'Why?' On 11/3/21 8:05 AM, Devin Prater wrote: > Do we have to go PDF? Oh dear God. Okay if they're textual in nature, > sure. But you know someone is gonna start uploading scans. I mean > people can do that in HTML kinda, but thankfully it's harder to do. > Devin Prater > r.d.t.prater at gmail.com <mailto:r.d.t.prater at gmail.com> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:35 AM DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx > <mailto:u9000 at posteo.mx>> wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > > I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. > > Also, that's not line-oriented. > > > People are of course free to write their own clients that do > their own > > processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or > > HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. > > Side note: I think it's best to serve PDFs instead of other markup > languages because everyone can view PDFs. Many people don't have a > markdown viewer/compiler installed, and serving HTML is, in my > opinion, > overkill for Gemini. > > -- > DJ Chase > They, Them, Theirs > -- ----- http://singletona082.flounder.online gemini://singletona082.flounder.online My online presence
Sure, if you want screen reader users to have to hear "lattin bold capital letter a lattin bold letter d latin bold letter o latin bold letter n latin bold letter a latin bold letter l latin bold letter s latin bold letter i latin bold letter u latin bold letter m." I mean I knew this would start happening because people don't like constraints on expression of text. And now I guess it starts. Devin Prater r.d.t.prater at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 12:58 AM Charles Iliya Krempeaux < cikrempeaux at gmail.com> wrote: > If you think of ?highlight? as bolding, then ? > > At least for the alphabet we commonly associate with English, Unicode has > bold versions of those characters: > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > If you are writing English, you could use those characters. > > -- > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > cikrempeaux at gmail.com > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 4:04 AM Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> > wrote: > >> Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. >> I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which can be >> used several times in each paragraph of text as a switch that was initially >> turned off. >> Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. >> Now I throw this message into space. ? >> >> Roberto Soccoli >> Telegram me: @Roberto_Soccoli >> >>
Davin beat me to it. The idea of 'well lets just use the bold unicode' is... an anti feature for anyone needing anything adaptive, and goes counter to offloading presentation elements onto the client. On 11/3/21 8:10 AM, Devin Prater wrote: > Sure, if you want screen reader users to have to hear "lattin bold > capital letter a lattin bold letter d latin bold letter o latin bold > letter n latin bold letter a latin bold letter l latin bold letter s > latin bold letter i latin bold letter u latin bold letter m." I mean I > knew this would start happening because people don't like constraints > on expression of text. And now I guess it starts. > Devin Prater > r.d.t.prater at gmail.com <mailto:r.d.t.prater at gmail.com> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 12:58 AM Charles Iliya Krempeaux > <cikrempeaux at gmail.com <mailto:cikrempeaux at gmail.com>> wrote: > > If you think of ?highlight? as bolding, then ? > > At least for the alphabet we commonly associate with English, > Unicode has bold versions of those characters: > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > > If you are writing English, you could use those characters. > > -- > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > cikrempeaux at gmail.com <mailto:cikrempeaux at gmail.com> > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 4:04 AM Roberto Soccoli > <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com <mailto:roberto.vpt at protonmail.com>> > wrote: > > Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. > I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which > can be used several times in each paragraph of text as a > switch that was initially turned off. > Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. > Now I throw this message into space. ? > > Roberto Soccoli > Telegram me:?@Roberto_Soccoli > -- ----- http://singletona082.flounder.online gemini://singletona082.flounder.online My online presence
Thank you so much for this. Yes, people may not care. The writers may not care. The web browser developers may not care. But the spec creators should do everything in their power to make Gemini as resistant as possible to the degradation that is improper use of things for styling. Again, as someone noted and that I'd kinda forgotten, you can serve Markdown or HTML or Org-mode files, or even PDF's if a browser (read Lagrange) supports it. Devin Prater r.d.t.prater at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 6:07 AM Alexis <flexibeast at gmail.com> wrote: > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux at gmail.com> writes: > > > I know ? but I think there is a tendency for semantic elements > > to eventually become > > (defacto) style elements. > > > > ? > > > > The sense I have of this is ? > > > > Regular people don't care whether these were originally for > > mathematics or not ? > > they look like bold versions of characters. And a number of > > people are already using > > them as such. (There are even online tools to help people use > > them.) > > They are, and that's a significant accessibility issue. As i wrote > elsewhere: > > > The use of various Unicode graphemes in an attempt to create the > > effect of using a different font (something i frequently > > encounter online) can be really shit for those who have to use > > screenreaders. For example, "??" will probably not be read out > > to them as "hi", but as "MATHEMATICAL SYMBOL FRAKTUR SMALL H > > MATHEMATICAL SYMBOL FRAKTUR SMALL I". > > So, sure, if people care more about style than about making their > text accessible to a variety of people, that's their choice. But > i'd really prefer that geminispace avoid, for as long as possible, > the style-over-substance road that the Web has taken. > > > Alexis. >
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 08:13:11AM -0500, Andrew Singleton wrote: > Davin beat me to it. > > The idea of 'well lets just use the bold unicode' is... an anti feature for > anyone needing anything adaptive, and goes counter to offloading > presentation elements onto the client. Alyssa Rosenzweig has written about the accessibility problems caused by abusing Unicode for presentation here: gemini://rosenzweig.io/gemlog/2021-04-04-your-gemlog-may-not-be-accessible.gmi On a different tack, here's Nervuri on how Unicode homoglyphs can be used in fingerprinting attacks on published text and how such things can be detected and avoided: gemini://rawtext.club/~nervuri/stega.gmi For more on homoglyphs (distinct characters with visually similar appearance): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph
Very screenreader unfriendly ahead... --- MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL W MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL y MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL d MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL o MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL n APOSTROPHE MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL y MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL o MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL u MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL f MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL u MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL c MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL k MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL o MATHEMATICAL MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL f MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL f MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL w MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL i MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL a MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC SMALL s MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC SMALL i MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC SMALL t PERIOD ~nytpu -- Alex // nytpu alex at nytpu.com gpg --locate-external-key alex at nytpu.com
On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 08:08 -0500, Andrew Singleton wrote: > I'm reminded of the guy that went 'the internet is shit. return to PDF' > and everyone else just > > 'PDF is terrible for a long list of reasons.' > > So I ask now the same question as then without further rhetoric. 'Why?' To be clear: I'm not proposing serving PDFs; I'm suggesting not to serve HTML or Markdown (which is an HTML front-end, and can include HTML tags such as `<script>`). > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:35 AM DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx > > <mailto:u9000 at posteo.mx>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > > > I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. > > > Also, that's not line-oriented. > > > People are of course free to write their own clients that do > > > their own > > > processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or > > > HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. Also, this isn't a standard. It's aruably not even the defacto-standard. -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
I don't need a screen reader and I can /HEAR/ that.... so yes while you can't keep someone from using substitute lettering via the spec so long as its valid unicode? please do not do this. On 11/3/21 9:16 AM, Alex // nytpu wrote: > Very screenreader unfriendly ahead... > > --- > > MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL W MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD > SMALL y MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL d MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL o MATHEMATICAL > BOLD SMALL n APOSTROPHE MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD > SMALL y MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL o MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL u MATHEMATICAL > BOLD SMALL f MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL u MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL c > MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL k MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL o MATHEMATICAL > MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL f MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL f MATHEMATICAL BOLD > SMALL w MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL i MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL > BOLD SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL h > MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL a MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL t MATHEMATICAL BOLD > ITALIC SMALL s MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC SMALL h MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC > SMALL i MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC SMALL t PERIOD > > ~nytpu > -- ----- http://singletona082.flounder.online gemini://singletona082.flounder.online My online presence
Others have already said what I would say about the rest of this thread,
so I will skip that part.
On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 12:41 +0200, babiak wrote:
> > If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the
> > back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than
> > symbol ? then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical
> > characters?
> >
>
> I personally don't recall the pound symbol having any meaning in gemini,
> I'll have to look through the spec again. However!
Charles is refering to '#', not '?'. '#' is called the 'pound
{sign,symbol}' in the telephone system.
--
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs
Oh that makes more sense. Thanks!
On 03/11/2021 19:05, DJ Chase wrote:
> Others have already said what I would say about the rest of this thread,
> so I will skip that part.
>
> On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 12:41 +0200, babiak wrote:
>>> If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the
>>> back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than
>>> symbol ? then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical
>>> characters?
>>>
>>
>> I personally don't recall the pound symbol having any meaning in gemini,
>> I'll have to look through the spec again. However!
>
> Charles is refering to '#', not '?'. '#' is called the 'pound
> {sign,symbol}' in the telephone system.
>
>
--
-------------------------
Gemini capsule: babiak.duckdns.org
> Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 14:56:22 +0000 > From: DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx> > To: Andrew Singleton <singletona082 at gmail.com>, Devin Prater > <r.d.t.prater at gmail.com> > Cc: Gemini application layer protocol <gemini at lists.orbitalfox.eu>, > Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> > Subject: Re: A Gemini-style proposal > Message-ID: <e5620ac174b95cea0d66a62e0b8bf77e4027db34.camel at posteo.mx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 08:08 -0500, Andrew Singleton wrote: >> I'm reminded of the guy that went 'the internet is shit. return to PDF' >> and everyone else just >> >> 'PDF is terrible for a long list of reasons.' >> >> So I ask now the same question as then without further rhetoric. 'Why?' > > To be clear: I'm not proposing serving PDFs; I'm suggesting not to serve > HTML or Markdown (which is an HTML front-end, and can include HTML tags > such as `<script>`). > >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:35 AM DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx >>> <mailto:u9000 at posteo.mx>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: >>>> I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. >>>> Also, that's not line-oriented. >>>> People are of course free to write their own clients that do >>>> their own >>>> processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or >>>> HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. > > Also, this isn't a standard. It's aruably not even the defacto-standard. People have pointed out from early on that gemini is designed on the server side to serve text documents (as not-links, anyway), and if you need more than the native gemtext format has to offer, you are free to serve whatever text, be it Markdown or what have you. I think all the browsers will just display markdown in all its human-readable glory. Like if you view gemini pages is bombadillo, and headline just look like # Headline peteyboy at sdf.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org
It would be interesting to look at the existing browsers that support Gemini & Gemtext, to see what other data formats they support. Would also be even more interesting to compare that against which browsers are currently more popular. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. cikrempeaux at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 4:56 PM Pete D. <peteyboy at sdf.org> wrote: > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 14:56:22 +0000 > > From: DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx> > > To: Andrew Singleton <singletona082 at gmail.com>, Devin Prater > > <r.d.t.prater at gmail.com> > > Cc: Gemini application layer protocol <gemini at lists.orbitalfox.eu>, > > Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> > > Subject: Re: A Gemini-style proposal > > Message-ID: <e5620ac174b95cea0d66a62e0b8bf77e4027db34.camel at posteo.mx> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 08:08 -0500, Andrew Singleton wrote: > >> I'm reminded of the guy that went 'the internet is shit. return to PDF' > >> and everyone else just > >> > >> 'PDF is terrible for a long list of reasons.' > >> > >> So I ask now the same question as then without further rhetoric. 'Why?' > > > > To be clear: I'm not proposing serving PDFs; I'm suggesting not to serve > > HTML or Markdown (which is an HTML front-end, and can include HTML tags > > such as `<script>`). > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:35 AM DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx > >>> <mailto:u9000 at posteo.mx>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:41 +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote: > >>>> I?d say no. The functionality of Gemini is pretty much done. > >>>> Also, that's not line-oriented. > >>>> People are of course free to write their own clients that do > >>>> their own > >>>> processing. But the standard is: if you need that, serve Markdown or > >>>> HTML documents instead of extending Gemtext. > > > > Also, this isn't a standard. It's aruably not even the defacto-standard. > > People have pointed out from early on that gemini is designed on the > server side to serve text documents (as not-links, anyway), and if you > need more than the native gemtext format has to offer, you are free to > serve whatever text, be it Markdown or what have you. I think all the > browsers will just display markdown in all its human-readable glory. Like > if you view gemini pages is bombadillo, and headline just look like > > # Headline > > > > peteyboy at sdf.org > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org >
Hi Roberto! On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 11:03:39 +0000 Roberto Soccoli <roberto.vpt at protonmail.com> wrote: > Gemini now expects the "* " tag for lists. > I propose a single "**" tag, which I call "highlighted", which can be used several times in each paragraph of text as a switch that was initially turned off. Previous discussions about in-line styling are relevant here: https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/2020/003177.html There are some good comments there why it's a good idea and why it's not, and what the alternatives are. My suggestion back then was for clients to optionally allow users to define regular expressions to describe text that should be emphasized in different ways. No need for a spec change so long as you don't change the content (see the paragraph below), because the spec gives some room for interpretation regarding rendering. If you mean for these "**" not to be in-line, but to occur at the start of a line, note that Gemini doesn't have a concept of paragraphs and that every line break is printed, unlike e.g. Markdown which joins consecutive, non-empty lines into paragraphs. > Each client can interpret "highlighted" at will. For any semblance of backwards compatibility, clients that implemented this feature would need to show the original "**" in addition to handling it, or it might break existing documents. -- Philip
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 22:58:23 -0700 Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux at gmail.com> wrote: > At least for the alphabet we commonly associate with English, Unicode has > bold versions of those characters: Note that these are from the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block, and are intended to be used as mathematical symbols. Using them for free-text emphasis subverts their intended purpose and may throw things like text to speech systems, document search etc. off. I am strongly against using them for emphasis. -- Philip
It infuriates me that the '?' character sits on so many keyboard
configurations. Somebody should create a use for it or it should be put
out of its misery - it takes up too much realestate.
DJ Chase <u9000 at posteo.mx> writes:
> Others have already said what I would say about the rest of this thread,
> so I will skip that part.
>
> On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 12:41 +0200, babiak wrote:
>> > If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the
>> > back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than
>> > symbol ? then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical
>> > characters?
>> >
>>
>> I personally don't recall the pound symbol having any meaning in gemini,
>> I'll have to look through the spec again. However!
>
> Charles is refering to '#', not '?'. '#' is called the 'pound
> {sign,symbol}' in the telephone system.
---
Previous Thread: ANN: go-hg — Mercury Protocol client & server library for Go programming language