This time it's a short question that I can't find an answer to. Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to support one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one? What I was able to find was, "Current Gemini servers seem to use .gmi or .gemini extensions for this purpose, and new servers are strongly encouraged to support one or both of these options instead of adding a new one to the mix." (from gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/best-practices.gmi) To be clear: You won't get any argument from me. The only thing swaying me either way is, to me, '.gem' feels cooler. I'd *really* love to use that... I'd feel... almost sad to use gmi... and gemini is annoyingly long. So. No logical argument here. Just looking for some background and trying to get a feel for how horrible a person I'd be if I went with gem. Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210120/798e 0885/attachment.htm>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, at 5:28 AM, Mansfield wrote: > This time it's a short question that I can't find an answer to. > > Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to > support one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one? > > What I was able to find was, "Current Gemini servers seem to use .gmi > or .gemini extensions for this purpose, and new servers are strongly > encouraged to support one or both of these options instead of adding a > new one to the mix." (from > gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/best-practices.gmi) > > To be clear: You won't get any argument from me. The only thing swaying > me either way is, to me, '.gem' feels cooler. I'd *really* love to use > that... I'd feel... almost sad to use gmi... and gemini is annoyingly > long. So. No logical argument here. Just looking for some background > and trying to get a feel for how horrible a person I'd be if I went > with gem. > > Thoughts? .gem is for Ruby gem files (sort of libraries)
It was thus said that the Great Mansfield once stated: > This time it's a short question that I can't find an answer to. > > Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to support > one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one? > > What I was able to find was, "Current Gemini servers seem to use .gmi or > .gemini extensions for this purpose, and new servers are strongly > encouraged to support one or both of these options instead of adding a new > one to the mix." (from gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/best-practices.gmi) > > To be clear: You won't get any argument from me. The only thing swaying me > either way is, to me, '.gem' feels cooler. I'd *really* love to use that... > I'd feel... almost sad to use gmi... and gemini is annoyingly long. So. No > logical argument here. Just looking for some background and trying to get a > feel for how horrible a person I'd be if I went with gem. > > Thoughts? Go for it. Just make sure the server you use can be configured to use .gem as the extension. Clients don't care about extensions because the MIME type is returned. -spc
Mansfield <mansfield at ondollo.com> writes:
> Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to
> support one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one?
You can use whatever extension you want, or no extension, as long as
your server is configured to serve it as text/gemini. I think the main
reason people didn't use .gem originally is because it's already used
for an image file format, and maybe also for Ruby gems.
--
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
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:42 PM Miguel de Luis Espinosa < enteka at fastmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, at 5:28 AM, Mansfield wrote: > > This time it's a short question that I can't find an answer to. > > > > Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to > > support one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one? > > > > What I was able to find was, "Current Gemini servers seem to use .gmi > > or .gemini extensions for this purpose, and new servers are strongly > > encouraged to support one or both of these options instead of adding a > > new one to the mix." (from > > gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/best-practices.gmi) > > > > To be clear: You won't get any argument from me. The only thing swaying > > me either way is, to me, '.gem' feels cooler. I'd *really* love to use > > that... I'd feel... almost sad to use gmi... and gemini is annoyingly > > long. So. No logical argument here. Just looking for some background > > and trying to get a feel for how horrible a person I'd be if I went > > with gem. > > > > Thoughts? > > .gem is for Ruby gem files (sort of libraries) > Ah. Humm... unfortunate. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210124/de25 698e/attachment.htm>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:57 PM Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Mansfield once stated: > > This time it's a short question that I can't find an answer to. > > > > Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to > support > > one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one? > > > > What I was able to find was, "Current Gemini servers seem to use .gmi or > > .gemini extensions for this purpose, and new servers are strongly > > encouraged to support one or both of these options instead of adding a > new > > one to the mix." (from gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/best-practices.gmi) > > > > To be clear: You won't get any argument from me. The only thing swaying > me > > either way is, to me, '.gem' feels cooler. I'd *really* love to use > that... > > I'd feel... almost sad to use gmi... and gemini is annoyingly long. So. > No > > logical argument here. Just looking for some background and trying to > get a > > feel for how horrible a person I'd be if I went with gem. > > > > Thoughts? > > Go for it. Just make sure the server you use can be configured to use > .gem as the extension. Clients don't care about extensions because the > MIME > type is returned. > > -spc > Good to hear that it's acceptable. I hadn't thought of making it configurable - I'll add that to the TODO list. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210124/8842 d1aa/attachment.htm>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:36 AM Jason McBrayer <jmcbray at carcosa.net> wrote: > Mansfield <mansfield at ondollo.com> writes: > > > Why not use '.gem' as the file extension? Why the encouragement to > > support one or both of gmi / gemini instead of adding a new one? > > You can use whatever extension you want, or no extension, as long as > your server is configured to serve it as text/gemini. I think the main > reason people didn't use .gem originally is because it's already used > for an image file format, and maybe also for Ruby gems. > Image file format? Huh. Good to know. I hadn't thought about *no* extension. I'm probably gonna skip that, but make it configurable. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210124/5001 50f1/attachment.htm>
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Sean Conner wrote: > > Go for it. Just make sure the server you use can be configured to use > .gem as the extension. Clients don't care about extensions because the MIME > type is returned. At least until Microsoft implements a Gemini client, at which point MIME types will be ignored in favour of file extensions. Mk -- Martin Keegan, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:58:52AM +0000, Martin Keegan <martin at no.ucant.org> wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > At least until Microsoft implements a Gemini client, at which point MIME > types will be ignored in favour of file extensions. Or content sniffing, like Internet Explorer did.
---