Hi, geminispace is growing and some web services are getting mirrored on gemini. I am starting a list of mirrors on gemini. If you know about more mirrors than I have there, I will be happy to hear about them. I also wrote a page about how clients could benefit from this list. gemini://gempaper.strangled.net/mirrorlist/ Paper
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > gemini://gempaper.strangled.net/mirrorlist/ Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. Cheers, Solderpunk
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > > Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > > Cheers, > Solderpunk I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. Paper
Soon a wikipedia mirror? :-) ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24, <paper at tilde.institute> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > > Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > > Cheers, > > Solderpunk > > I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. > > Paper
Thank you so much for this page, I was actually planning on starting a Lobsters mirror myself before looking at this. - meff On 6/17/20 3:45 AM, defdefred wrote: > Soon a wikipedia mirror? > > :-) > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24, <paper at tilde.institute> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: >>> Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. >>> Cheers, >>> Solderpunk >> >> I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. >> >> Paper > >
Wikipedia on Gemini by popular demand: gemini://wp.pitr.ca/en/Gemini_(constellation) This is not strictly a mirror, as a dump of wikipedia is quite large - https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200520/ - but rather a proxy that makes request to wikipedia API, parses wikitext into an HTML DOM (since wikitext supports HTML tags) which is then simplified into text/gemini. This process is not perfect and there are quite a few imperfections. But before I sink more time into this, I wonder if text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. Pages are usually huge, with lots of links. And this is even before considerations for how best to handle images, tables, special symbols, special tags, etc. From trying to browse it myself, my first impression is that wikipedia format can't/shouldn't be simplified any further than it already is on the web. What do others think? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM defdefred <defdefred at protonmail.com> wrote: > > Soon a wikipedia mirror? > > :-) > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24, <paper at tilde.institute> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > > > Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > > > Cheers, > > > Solderpunk > > > > I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. > > > > Paper > >
On 6/19/20 10:46 PM, Peter Vernigorov wrote: > I wonder if > text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. I can't answer that definitively, but I can say from experience that gopherpedia is used quite a lot and referenced in gopher phlogs all the time. I suspect gemini will likewise enjoy its existence. gopher://gopherpedia.com
This is very cool and works well, nice work! That's a good way of handling inline links, I'm going to add that as an option to md2gemini. Do you think you will add caching to this service, if you haven't already? Probably would improve response times a lot. > I wonder if text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. It is not, mostly because of the lack of inline links. However, you've done a good job with this mirror/proxy and I'm happy it exists. But in general I wouldn't recommend text/gemini for wiki type stuff. makeworld ??????? Original Message ??????? On Friday, June 19, 2020 6:46 PM, Peter Vernigorov <pitr.vern at gmail.com> wrote: > Wikipedia on Gemini by popular demand: > > gemini://wp.pitr.ca/en/Gemini_(constellation) > > This is not strictly a mirror, as a dump of wikipedia is quite large - > https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200520/ - but rather a proxy that > makes request to wikipedia API, parses wikitext into an HTML DOM > (since wikitext supports HTML tags) which is then simplified into > text/gemini. This process is not perfect and there are quite a few > imperfections. But before I sink more time into this, I wonder if > text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. Pages > are usually huge, with lots of links. And this is even before > considerations for how best to handle images, tables, special symbols, > special tags, etc. From trying to browse it myself, my first > impression is that wikipedia format can't/shouldn't be simplified any > further than it already is on the web. What do others think? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM defdefred defdefred at protonmail.com wrote: > > > Soon a wikipedia mirror? > > :-) > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > > > > Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Solderpunk > > > > > > I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. > > > Paper
Hi Peter That looks great and is worth keeping if you are happy to host it. The question of what is the equivalent of in-line links in Gemini comes up from time to time, either as it is a natural thing that authors want to do and already do, or when re-presenting existing markdown or html for gemini. The most common idiom I have seen is the use of square brackets to indicate the placemarker in the text line as a citation, followed by a link having the reference. For example like this [1] that would be one of the subsequent links, or another one [2] that goes to the second one. It is a common form seen in many places, such as academic papers with footnotes and references. => url display text with matching item at end [1] => url2 [2] display text with match at beginning Personally I find this better than simply having the text without any clear boundary, as it is clearer where the citation is made. For example if you just use a single word it is unclear which usage of it is the link anchor. There could even be multiple words that match, and you don't want them all implicitly referencing the link. So it is more specific this way. My personal view is that this type of re-wiring-up, to put back the links into the text could be a client option, and user choice. Then the hotspots in the text could be reinstated. The criteria would be: 1. Link anchor uses the defined pattern e.g. - [n] as the first or last item in the display text - or more adventurously, matching text in a square bracket as the whole link line display text like this: [the thing] 2. After the line is a list of links, and there is a match as the first or last word in the display text. Or maybe just in the following content (like a list of references at the end of the page) 3. Then the link anchor is wired up to the target - optional) the link line is optionally hidden (again user and client choice) It would be nice if the mirroring tools adopted a common convention on this, as then clients can do more work to improve the UI for users. And anyway, this all gracefully degrades and is just a client nicety. It could be noted as part of our collective common practice. Best wishes - Luke On 19-Jun-2020 23:46, Peter Vernigorov wrote: > Wikipedia on Gemini by popular demand: > > gemini://wp.pitr.ca/en/Gemini_(constellation) > > This is not strictly a mirror, as a dump of wikipedia is quite large - > https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200520/ - but rather a proxy that > makes request to wikipedia API, parses wikitext into an HTML DOM > (since wikitext supports HTML tags) which is then simplified into > text/gemini. This process is not perfect and there are quite a few > imperfections. But before I sink more time into this, I wonder if > text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. Pages > are usually huge, with lots of links. And this is even before > considerations for how best to handle images, tables, special symbols, > special tags, etc. From trying to browse it myself, my first > impression is that wikipedia format can't/shouldn't be simplified any > further than it already is on the web. What do others think? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM defdefred<defdefred at protonmail.com> wrote: >> Soon a wikipedia mirror? >> >> :-) >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24,<paper at tilde.institute> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: >>>> Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Solderpunk >>> I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. >>> >>> Paper >>
Thanks, I added this wikipedia mirror/proxy and Alex's mirror to the list. Paper On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:46:11AM +0200, Peter Vernigorov wrote: > Wikipedia on Gemini by popular demand: > > gemini://wp.pitr.ca/en/Gemini_(constellation) > > This is not strictly a mirror, as a dump of wikipedia is quite large - > https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200520/ - but rather a proxy that > makes request to wikipedia API, parses wikitext into an HTML DOM > (since wikitext supports HTML tags) which is then simplified into > text/gemini. This process is not perfect and there are quite a few > imperfections. But before I sink more time into this, I wonder if > text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. Pages > are usually huge, with lots of links. And this is even before > considerations for how best to handle images, tables, special symbols, > special tags, etc. From trying to browse it myself, my first > impression is that wikipedia format can't/shouldn't be simplified any > further than it already is on the web. What do others think? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM defdefred <defdefred at protonmail.com> wrote: > > > > Soon a wikipedia mirror? > > > > :-) > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24, <paper at tilde.institute> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > > > > Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Solderpunk > > > > > > I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. > > > > > > Paper > > > >
Thanks for feedback, Luke. I initially went with the [N] syntax. What I found out was that "url [1]" does not work because of things like "[constellation]s" becoming "constellation [1]s". "[1] url" is not ideal either, as some clients, like av98, would already have a link counter, and since I have a 2 links hardcoded at the top of the page to search and home, I ended up needing to increment link counter by 2, and even then it would be rendered as "[22] [22] name". In the end I changed it to "... [url] ..." so the reader knows that they can get more info by finding the link at the end of the paragraph. Hopefully it's a good compromise. On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:19 AM Luke Emmet <luke at marmaladefoo.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter > > That looks great and is worth keeping if you are happy to host it. > > The question of what is the equivalent of in-line links in Gemini comes > up from time to time, either as it is a natural thing that authors want > to do and already do, or when re-presenting existing markdown or html > for gemini. > > The most common idiom I have seen is the use of square brackets to > indicate the placemarker in the text line as a citation, followed by a > link having the reference. For example like this [1] that would be one > of the subsequent links, or another one [2] that goes to the second one. > It is a common form seen in many places, such as academic papers with > footnotes and references. > > => url display text with matching item at end [1] > => url2 [2] display text with match at beginning > > Personally I find this better than simply having the text without any > clear boundary, as it is clearer where the citation is made. For example > if you just use a single word it is unclear which usage of it is the > link anchor. There could even be multiple words that match, and you > don't want them all implicitly referencing the link. So it is more > specific this way. > > My personal view is that this type of re-wiring-up, to put back the > links into the text could be a client option, and user choice. Then the > hotspots in the text could be reinstated. The criteria would be: > > 1. Link anchor uses the defined pattern e.g. > > - [n] as the first or last item in the display text > - or more adventurously, matching text in a square bracket as the > whole link line display text like this: [the thing] > > 2. After the line is a list of links, and there is a match as the first > or last word in the display text. Or maybe just in the following content > (like a list of references at the end of the page) > > 3. Then the link anchor is wired up to the target > > - optional) the link line is optionally hidden (again user and client > choice) > > It would be nice if the mirroring tools adopted a common convention on > this, as then clients can do more work to improve the UI for users. > > And anyway, this all gracefully degrades and is just a client nicety. It > could be noted as part of our collective common practice. > > Best wishes > > - Luke > > On 19-Jun-2020 23:46, Peter Vernigorov wrote: > > Wikipedia on Gemini by popular demand: > > > > gemini://wp.pitr.ca/en/Gemini_(constellation) > > > > This is not strictly a mirror, as a dump of wikipedia is quite large - > > https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20200520/ - but rather a proxy that > > makes request to wikipedia API, parses wikitext into an HTML DOM > > (since wikitext supports HTML tags) which is then simplified into > > text/gemini. This process is not perfect and there are quite a few > > imperfections. But before I sink more time into this, I wonder if > > text/gemini is indeed the best format for wikipedia articles. Pages > > are usually huge, with lots of links. And this is even before > > considerations for how best to handle images, tables, special symbols, > > special tags, etc. From trying to browse it myself, my first > > impression is that wikipedia format can't/shouldn't be simplified any > > further than it already is on the web. What do others think? > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM defdefred<defdefred at protonmail.com> wrote: > >> Soon a wikipedia mirror? > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> ??????? Original Message ??????? > >> On Wednesday 17 June 2020 12:24,<paper at tilde.institute> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:17:58AM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:56:57AM -0400, paper at tilde.institute wrote: > >>>> Good job with the "Why?" page! You convinced me quickly. > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Solderpunk > >>> I wasn't sure the Why page was good enough, thanks alot. > >>> > >>> Paper > >>
---