4 ms·
I can get behind the long lines and lack of italics and bold (there is talk about implementing it in the spec, I hope it gets accepted) but the rest of it is ju
by betwixthewires 5y ago
I can get behind the long lines and lack of italics and bold (there is talk about implementing it in the spec, I hope it gets accepted) but the rest of it is just griping that Gemini isn't HTTP/HTML. I especially get on the case of people who want inline links because if you read the reasoning behind it it is exactly to not have the things the author of this article argues for in favor of them. It exists for a reduction of ambiguity.
- krapp 5y ago>there is talk about implementing it in the spec, I hope it gets accepted How can there be talk of implementing anything in the spec, when the spec was designed with the explicit intent of never being updated?
- betwixthewires 5y agoIt was not designed with the explicit intent of never being updated, it was designed with the explicit intent of being complete one day soon. There will come a time when Gemini will be done, and even now any changes are taken very cautiously, but it is still in development.
- krapp 5y agoOK, but the FAQ states the protocol is already considered feature complete "modulo small changes to remove ambiguity and address edge cases" and that no new features will be considered. Extra syntax to allow for italics and bold, much less any accessibility features, seem like new features.
- betwixthewires 5y agoWell if the maintainer decides not to implement any text formatting then there are still options. The spec is designed to break, not bend, explicitly, and can always be forked, or we can do what we have always done, _this sort of thing_ and its not ideal but it's really no big deal to use some type of markup style punctuation rather than actual formatting.