7 ms·

The problem isn't Gemini, the problem is Gemini marketing. Gemini enthusiasts (or, at least the ones I've seen posts from, most notably ddevault) market Gemini

The problem isn't Gemini, the problem is Gemini marketing. Gemini enthusiasts (or, at least the ones I've seen posts from, most notably ddevault) market Gemini as a replacement (edit: in whole or part, it doesn't matter, the argument is the same) for "the web". Then, when you point out that Gemini has basically none of the features of "the web" (and is incapable of supporting the vast majority of its content, and even the vast majority of its good content), they then say that "oh, you don't need those features, inline images are an anti-pattern!" Or something. The problem isn't that Gemini has no features, the problem is that it's being marketed as a replacement (edit: in whole or in non-trivial part, it doesn't matter) for the web, which is it clearly unsuited for. Gemini is bad at conveying almost any content except text, which also means that it's unsuitable for scientific papers, education, browser games, social media (even for less "social" social media, like Reddit and HN, where you could be exchanging purely technical information), web services, web applications (disclaimer: I think that web applications are generally slow and dumb, but I'd much rather use HN from my browser than download a dedicated .deb just for it), wikis and encyclopedias, Stack Overflow, search engines, and various other web things that your life would be significantly less great without. So, by all means, use Gemini. Just don't say that it's a "replacement" for the web (edit: not even part of it - Gemini does so little that the comparison is entirely invalid), or "better" than the web (or associated technology). It is its own thing with its own community that is entirely complementary to the web, and nothing more. If you want to go back to the internet dark ages without Wikipedia, Google, Stack Overflow, Compiler Explorer, and Shadertoy, have fun - just don't drag me down with you.

agumonkey 5y ago
to me what gemini lacks, is a sense of information ergonomics so far it seems less usable than a badly coded as400 terminal applicatoin
- readyplayeremma 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on this a bit? The protocol itself, as far as how it conveys and interlinks information seems comparable to early HTML. Documents with very basic formatting, that can be navigated via a hyperlink, forming a web or information graph in the big picture. It sounds a bit like you didn't enjoy the browser you used rather than the protocol? There are terminal based browsers that might seem very non-modern, but there are also full GUI browsers that aren't much different than a web browser as far as UX. Within the limitation of the defined protocol of course, meaning text only with basic formatting and no inline images. I personally find the formatting limitations and lack of inline images leads to a richer experience of taking in the information being conveyed. It's almost like the difference between reading a book and watching a movie. Both have their place in our culture. Even today in the age of VR/AR, 3D IMAX films, etc., we still read books, and it is a pleasant experience for many to take in content that way. There are no distractions, only the content. Gemini is uniquely enjoyable because the imposed limitations provide many of the same benefits that people enjoy about reading books vs watching movies. The modern web very rarely provides content in that form. Nearly every article is interspersed with all kinds of media to "engage" the viewer. I enjoy a lot of it, however, I think there is something to be said about just putting the text out there bare as it is. Gemini creates a space where the content doesn't have to compete with distractions. All content is on equal footing and must stand solely on the written words themselves. No distractions. No way for one piece of content to sway you over another just because of high-budget media production. Just bare words that you must interpret yourself. It leads to an atmosphere that is engaging in some ways today's web cannot be, like a movie cannot be in place of a book. It requires a different kind of interpretation and imagination to take in, and I really appreciate that.
  - epicide 5y ago
    I think books are a great comparison for Gemini. Sure, some books have the occasional image and are made better for including it. However, thumbing through a lot (not all) of my stack of books, I see maybe one or two images in an entire book [0]. A lot of those are simple diagrams that could be conveyed (albeit crudely) via text. The remaining image (singular) could have easily been a URL or even a description. "A picture is worth a thousand words" works both ways. Therefore, sometimes it's better to just say a thousand words. And none of that is to say that we shouldn't have movies or shows or newspapers and textbooks full of pictures! Books pose no threat to any of those, so it's pretty odd to see people threatened seemingly by the mere existence of Gemini. Especially when part of its introduction is that it's not a replacement for the Web! Perhaps that upfront clarification is what's so scary? Depending on context, "we mean you no harm" can also sound like a threat. [0]: Though most have precisely 0. Obviously depends on author and their intent.
    - throw10920 5y ago
      I don't think that books are a great comparison for Gemini. Go read The Art of Computer Programming or Linear Algebra Done Right and tell me how easy it would be to process that information without mathematical equations. Gemini doesn't just eschew images - it gets rid of math notation, too. Imagine how much further we would be back if we had been unable to use mathematical notation that didn't fit the ASCII character set. Not to mention all of the thousands of books that are massively better off with actual diagrams in them, and the fact that many books (textbooks especially) that should use images don't. Gemini isn't even as capable as a book. And yes, the marketing material states that it's not a replacement for the Web, but it is constantly compared with the Web - sure sounds like a wink and a nod, a subtle suggestion that it is somewhat of a replacement. If Gemini users want to collectively go off and exclusively create content in Geminispace without bothering me, that's great. However, I'm not very amiable towards any efforts to start moving other people's stuff there, or even the possibility of getting big brains or educators onto that permanently crippled medium.
      - readyplayeremma 5y ago
Gigachad 5y ago
Gemini really seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The primary gripe seems to be that they don't like javascript and modern web tracking. But in the process they lost inline links, images, video, and a bunch of other things which are useful for reading static documents.
- nathell 5y ago
  In 2019, I wrote about the need for a web of documents [0], where I wrote about the importance of having static documents and sketched another approach. Gemini is a web of documents. A rudimentary one, but very content-focused – the signal-to-noise ratio is typically much higher than on WWW. You can visit any capsule in the Geminispace and have full confidence that it’ll only serve you gemtext to read. [0]: https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2019/10/07/web-of-documents/ https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2019/10/07/web-of-documents/
  - throw10920 5y ago
    On a technological level, the web that we have now is far better suited to being a web of documents than Gemini is or ever will be. It's one thing to say "we're going to build our own silo of high-quality content", but another to intentionally cripple its technical capabilities, which is what happened with Gemini. Gemini, the protocol, is extremely bad even for making a web of documents. Gemini, the network of content, might have a higher SNR than the web - but that's no excuse for pushing a protocol that is flat-out hostile to the transfer of information and knowledge.
  - chillfox 5y ago
    Images and video are significant content and while some text does just as well without it, like fiction, most text content is made better by images, video, animations, diagrams or drawings.
- gorjusborg 5y ago
  How can it be throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it isn't a replacement for X (and I assume you are implying X is the web)? I love the idea of a set of technologies targeted at text, and only text. Nobody is saying you can't have the web. I'm not giving it up. On the other hand, I welcome the a place I can go and not being accosted by ads, images, videos and cookie banners. A place where content is king.
rdiddly 5y ago
This is kind of a repeat of one of the straw man arguments mentioned in the article. If it's a response to how Gemini is being marketed (marketed?) then possibly the "marketers" are to blame, but I would have to see for myself, whether they're just saying "Hey here's something nifty" or going all full-blown "Hey here is the one true good right way and the solution to all problems and everything else is wrong and bad and anyone who doesn't go along is a horrifying evil person etc. and you're either with us or against us!" Sometimes the former quickly turns into the latter on the internet.
- throw10920 5y ago
  Please don't accuse me of strawmanning without providing concrete evidence for it.
  - rdiddly 5y ago
    - throw10920 5y ago
      > Yeah okay throwaway account, will do. Not only is this completely irrelevant, but this isn't a throwaway account - I've been using it persistently for the past few months. It's clear that you're not trying to make arguments, just use emotional manipulation, fallacies, and redirections to try to spread your opinion to others.
      - rdiddly 5y ago
        LOL!
s5806533 5y ago
Did ddevault specifically say that Gemini should be regarded as a replacement for the web? I never read him that way. As far as I can tell, people are constantly stressing the converse, namely that Gemini is not supposed to be the next web. It's even in the FAQ [1] -- if that's not part of the "marketing material", then I don't know what is. It would be very kind if you could provide specific citations to substantiate your claim about Gemini marketing. [1] see 1.6 in https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi
- throw10920 5y ago
  Right in that FAQ is the phrase "You may think of Gemini as "the web, stripped right back to its essence"". To a technical person, "foo, stripped right down to its essence" means that this thing is directly competing with foo - or, at the very least, that it exists in the same realm as foo. Gemini does not exist in the same realm as the web, nor is it at all similar to "the web, stripped right back to its essence". The fact that occasionally fans might disclaim that it's only meant to replace "part of" the web is materially irrelevant - Gemini isn't capable of replacing any nontrivial fraction of it. (its fans claim it is, though - "I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore other solutions for anything that’s left of the web which is worth keeping (hint: much of it is not).")[1] [1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/11/01/What-is-Gemini-anyway.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/11/01/What-is-Gemini-anyway.htm...
  - s5806533 5y ago
    I will concede that Gemini folk sometimes have a rather narrow definition of what the "essence" of the web is, namely, that the web is basically just a medium for hypertext. In the early days of Tim Berners-Lee this was true, though. And I still think that hypertext (as opposed to "web applications") represents a nontrivial fraction of the web (see Wikipedia and, to a lesser degree, blogs). Drew Devault makes a very valid point: that the web today is at the mercy of Google, because it depends on browser technology that has become so complex that only Google (and maybe a foundation entirely dependent on Google) can deliver it. An ad company! So we (as humanity) have to find ways to replace the web, step by step. And Drew says it right there: "Gemini [...] addresses a subset of its use-cases better than the web does." And for the other use-cases (i.e., besides hypertext), other replacements have to be found. So I still think that the marketing is way more nuanced than you are saying.
cartesius13 5y ago
This is probably the most annoying straw man argument against Gemini. One of the first things you see in their official page is: "Gemini is a new internet protocol which: Is heavier than gopher Is lighter than the web Will not replace either" And if you hang out and talk to people using it you find out that most, if not all, of them are well aware that Gemini will not and can not replace the Web. Even Drew Devault has said this about Gemini: "Gemini does not solve all of the web’s problems, but it addresses a subset of its use-cases better than the web does, and that excites me. I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore other solutions for anything that’s left of the web which is worth keeping". And don't think anyone here in good faith will say that this is "marketing Gemini as a Web replacement". You are imagining these marketers and arguing against them
- throw10920 5y ago
  > "I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore other solutions for anything that’s left of the web which is worth keeping" You conveniently left off the next part of that sentence: "(hint: much of it is not)" It's pretty clear that ddevault thinks that Gemini can replace a large fraction of the web (which is the issue under dispute). The difference between "Gemini can replace the whole web", "Gemini can replace a large fraction of the web", and "Gemini can replace anything more than a vanishingly tiny sliver of the web" is largely irrelevant, as all of them are false, and my argument reads the same if you substitute either of those other two phrases in.
  - cartesius13 5y ago
    My point is that most people using Gemini agrees with this: "It is its own thing with its own community that is entirely complementary to the web, and nothing more" even if they think some parts of the Web can be replaced by Gemini (which it can. Text only web pages with simple markup is a thing)
  - cartesius13 5y ago
    Also, replace is maybe not the best word here since a lot Gemini enthusiasts believe some things that are possible on the Web don't need a replacement because we would be better off if they didn't even exist. I also disagree that Gemini is a web replacement as in "everything the Web does Gemini can also do", when read "replace" this is what I think and this is clearly not true. To me it's more like "Some things the Web can do, Gemini also can and the things it can't do aren't really desirable anyway because they can be abused to do things I think is bad and evil"
nonethewiser 5y ago
>The problem isn't that Gemini has no features, the problem is that it's being marketed as a replacement Is it? This is at the very top of their front page: >Gemini is a new internet protocol which: >Is heavier than gopher >Is lighter than the web >Will not replace either https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
"So, by all means, use Gemini. Just don't say that it's a "replacement" for the web (edit: not even part of it - Gemini does so little that the comparison is entirely invalid), or "better" than the web (or associated technology). It is its own thing with its own community that is entirely complementary to the web, and nothing more." 1.6 Do you really think you can replace the web? Not for a minute! Nor does anybody involved with Gemini want to destroy Gopherspace. Gemini is not intended to replace either Gopher or the web, but to co-exist peacefully alongside them as one more option which people can freely choose to use if it suits them. In the same way that some people currently serve the same content via gopher and the web, people will be able to "bihost" or "trihost" content on whichever combination of protocols they think offer the best match to their technical, philosophical and aesthetic requirements and those of their intended audience. Source: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gml https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gml
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  Corrected URL: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi
Nbox9 5y ago
> thanks to the inclusion of a MIME type in the response header Gemini can be used to serve plain text, rich text, HTML, Markdown, LaTeX, etc. [0] I think you are referring to the text/gemini format which isn’t a required portion of the IP. [0] https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html

agumonkey 5y ago

to me what gemini lacks, is a sense of information ergonomics so far it seems less usable than a badly coded as400 terminal applicatoin

readyplayeremma 5y ago
Can you elaborate on this a bit? The protocol itself, as far as how it conveys and interlinks information seems comparable to early HTML. Documents with very basic formatting, that can be navigated via a hyperlink, forming a web or information graph in the big picture. It sounds a bit like you didn't enjoy the browser you used rather than the protocol? There are terminal based browsers that might seem very non-modern, but there are also full GUI browsers that aren't much different than a web browser as far as UX. Within the limitation of the defined protocol of course, meaning text only with basic formatting and no inline images. I personally find the formatting limitations and lack of inline images leads to a richer experience of taking in the information being conveyed. It's almost like the difference between reading a book and watching a movie. Both have their place in our culture. Even today in the age of VR/AR, 3D IMAX films, etc., we still read books, and it is a pleasant experience for many to take in content that way. There are no distractions, only the content. Gemini is uniquely enjoyable because the imposed limitations provide many of the same benefits that people enjoy about reading books vs watching movies. The modern web very rarely provides content in that form. Nearly every article is interspersed with all kinds of media to "engage" the viewer. I enjoy a lot of it, however, I think there is something to be said about just putting the text out there bare as it is. Gemini creates a space where the content doesn't have to compete with distractions. All content is on equal footing and must stand solely on the written words themselves. No distractions. No way for one piece of content to sway you over another just because of high-budget media production. Just bare words that you must interpret yourself. It leads to an atmosphere that is engaging in some ways today's web cannot be, like a movie cannot be in place of a book. It requires a different kind of interpretation and imagination to take in, and I really appreciate that.
- epicide 5y ago
  I think books are a great comparison for Gemini. Sure, some books have the occasional image and are made better for including it. However, thumbing through a lot (not all) of my stack of books, I see maybe one or two images in an entire book [0]. A lot of those are simple diagrams that could be conveyed (albeit crudely) via text. The remaining image (singular) could have easily been a URL or even a description. "A picture is worth a thousand words" works both ways. Therefore, sometimes it's better to just say a thousand words. And none of that is to say that we shouldn't have movies or shows or newspapers and textbooks full of pictures! Books pose no threat to any of those, so it's pretty odd to see people threatened seemingly by the mere existence of Gemini. Especially when part of its introduction is that it's not a replacement for the Web! Perhaps that upfront clarification is what's so scary? Depending on context, "we mean you no harm" can also sound like a threat. [0]: Though most have precisely 0. Obviously depends on author and their intent.
  - throw10920 5y ago
    I don't think that books are a great comparison for Gemini. Go read The Art of Computer Programming or Linear Algebra Done Right and tell me how easy it would be to process that information without mathematical equations. Gemini doesn't just eschew images - it gets rid of math notation, too. Imagine how much further we would be back if we had been unable to use mathematical notation that didn't fit the ASCII character set. Not to mention all of the thousands of books that are massively better off with actual diagrams in them, and the fact that many books (textbooks especially) that should use images don't. Gemini isn't even as capable as a book. And yes, the marketing material states that it's not a replacement for the Web, but it is constantly compared with the Web - sure sounds like a wink and a nod, a subtle suggestion that it is somewhat of a replacement. If Gemini users want to collectively go off and exclusively create content in Geminispace without bothering me, that's great. However, I'm not very amiable towards any efforts to start moving other people's stuff there, or even the possibility of getting big brains or educators onto that permanently crippled medium.
    - readyplayeremma 5y ago

Gigachad 5y ago

Gemini really seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The primary gripe seems to be that they don't like javascript and modern web tracking. But in the process they lost inline links, images, video, and a bunch of other things which are useful for reading static documents.

nathell 5y ago
In 2019, I wrote about the need for a web of documents [0], where I wrote about the importance of having static documents and sketched another approach. Gemini is a web of documents. A rudimentary one, but very content-focused – the signal-to-noise ratio is typically much higher than on WWW. You can visit any capsule in the Geminispace and have full confidence that it’ll only serve you gemtext to read. [0]: https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2019/10/07/web-of-documents/ https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2019/10/07/web-of-documents/
- throw10920 5y ago
  On a technological level, the web that we have now is far better suited to being a web of documents than Gemini is or ever will be. It's one thing to say "we're going to build our own silo of high-quality content", but another to intentionally cripple its technical capabilities, which is what happened with Gemini. Gemini, the protocol, is extremely bad even for making a web of documents. Gemini, the network of content, might have a higher SNR than the web - but that's no excuse for pushing a protocol that is flat-out hostile to the transfer of information and knowledge.
- chillfox 5y ago
  Images and video are significant content and while some text does just as well without it, like fiction, most text content is made better by images, video, animations, diagrams or drawings.
gorjusborg 5y ago
How can it be throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it isn't a replacement for X (and I assume you are implying X is the web)? I love the idea of a set of technologies targeted at text, and only text. Nobody is saying you can't have the web. I'm not giving it up. On the other hand, I welcome the a place I can go and not being accosted by ads, images, videos and cookie banners. A place where content is king.

rdiddly 5y ago

This is kind of a repeat of one of the straw man arguments mentioned in the article. If it's a response to how Gemini is being marketed (marketed?) then possibly the "marketers" are to blame, but I would have to see for myself, whether they're just saying "Hey here's something nifty" or going all full-blown "Hey here is the one true good right way and the solution to all problems and everything else is wrong and bad and anyone who doesn't go along is a horrifying evil person etc. and you're either with us or against us!" Sometimes the former quickly turns into the latter on the internet.

throw10920 5y ago
Please don't accuse me of strawmanning without providing concrete evidence for it.
- rdiddly 5y ago
  - throw10920 5y ago
    > Yeah okay throwaway account, will do. Not only is this completely irrelevant, but this isn't a throwaway account - I've been using it persistently for the past few months. It's clear that you're not trying to make arguments, just use emotional manipulation, fallacies, and redirections to try to spread your opinion to others.
    - rdiddly 5y ago
      LOL!

s5806533 5y ago

Did ddevault specifically say that Gemini should be regarded as a replacement for the web? I never read him that way. As far as I can tell, people are constantly stressing the converse, namely that Gemini is not supposed to be the next web. It's even in the FAQ [1] -- if that's not part of the "marketing material", then I don't know what is. It would be very kind if you could provide specific citations to substantiate your claim about Gemini marketing. [1] see 1.6 in https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi

throw10920 5y ago
Right in that FAQ is the phrase "You may think of Gemini as "the web, stripped right back to its essence"". To a technical person, "foo, stripped right down to its essence" means that this thing is directly competing with foo - or, at the very least, that it exists in the same realm as foo. Gemini does not exist in the same realm as the web, nor is it at all similar to "the web, stripped right back to its essence". The fact that occasionally fans might disclaim that it's only meant to replace "part of" the web is materially irrelevant - Gemini isn't capable of replacing any nontrivial fraction of it. (its fans claim it is, though - "I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore other solutions for anything that’s left of the web which is worth keeping (hint: much of it is not).")[1] [1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/11/01/What-is-Gemini-anyway.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/11/01/What-is-Gemini-anyway.htm...
- s5806533 5y ago
  I will concede that Gemini folk sometimes have a rather narrow definition of what the "essence" of the web is, namely, that the web is basically just a medium for hypertext. In the early days of Tim Berners-Lee this was true, though. And I still think that hypertext (as opposed to "web applications") represents a nontrivial fraction of the web (see Wikipedia and, to a lesser degree, blogs). Drew Devault makes a very valid point: that the web today is at the mercy of Google, because it depends on browser technology that has become so complex that only Google (and maybe a foundation entirely dependent on Google) can deliver it. An ad company! So we (as humanity) have to find ways to replace the web, step by step. And Drew says it right there: "Gemini [...] addresses a subset of its use-cases better than the web does." And for the other use-cases (i.e., besides hypertext), other replacements have to be found. So I still think that the marketing is way more nuanced than you are saying.

cartesius13 5y ago

This is probably the most annoying straw man argument against Gemini. One of the first things you see in their official page is: "Gemini is a new internet protocol which: Is heavier than gopher Is lighter than the web Will not replace either" And if you hang out and talk to people using it you find out that most, if not all, of them are well aware that Gemini will not and can not replace the Web. Even Drew Devault has said this about Gemini: "Gemini does not solve all of the web’s problems, but it addresses a subset of its use-cases better than the web does, and that excites me. I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore other solutions for anything that’s left of the web which is worth keeping". And don't think anyone here in good faith will say that this is "marketing Gemini as a Web replacement". You are imagining these marketers and arguing against them

throw10920 5y ago
> "I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore other solutions for anything that’s left of the web which is worth keeping" You conveniently left off the next part of that sentence: "(hint: much of it is not)" It's pretty clear that ddevault thinks that Gemini can replace a large fraction of the web (which is the issue under dispute). The difference between "Gemini can replace the whole web", "Gemini can replace a large fraction of the web", and "Gemini can replace anything more than a vanishingly tiny sliver of the web" is largely irrelevant, as all of them are false, and my argument reads the same if you substitute either of those other two phrases in.
- cartesius13 5y ago
  My point is that most people using Gemini agrees with this: "It is its own thing with its own community that is entirely complementary to the web, and nothing more" even if they think some parts of the Web can be replaced by Gemini (which it can. Text only web pages with simple markup is a thing)
- cartesius13 5y ago
  Also, replace is maybe not the best word here since a lot Gemini enthusiasts believe some things that are possible on the Web don't need a replacement because we would be better off if they didn't even exist. I also disagree that Gemini is a web replacement as in "everything the Web does Gemini can also do", when read "replace" this is what I think and this is clearly not true. To me it's more like "Some things the Web can do, Gemini also can and the things it can't do aren't really desirable anyway because they can be abused to do things I think is bad and evil"

nonethewiser 5y ago

>The problem isn't that Gemini has no features, the problem is that it's being marketed as a replacement Is it? This is at the very top of their front page: >Gemini is a new internet protocol which: >Is heavier than gopher >Is lighter than the web >Will not replace either https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

"So, by all means, use Gemini. Just don't say that it's a "replacement" for the web (edit: not even part of it - Gemini does so little that the comparison is entirely invalid), or "better" than the web (or associated technology). It is its own thing with its own community that is entirely complementary to the web, and nothing more." 1.6 Do you really think you can replace the web? Not for a minute! Nor does anybody involved with Gemini want to destroy Gopherspace. Gemini is not intended to replace either Gopher or the web, but to co-exist peacefully alongside them as one more option which people can freely choose to use if it suits them. In the same way that some people currently serve the same content via gopher and the web, people will be able to "bihost" or "trihost" content on whichever combination of protocols they think offer the best match to their technical, philosophical and aesthetic requirements and those of their intended audience. Source: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gml https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gml

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Corrected URL: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi

Nbox9 5y ago

> thanks to the inclusion of a MIME type in the response header Gemini can be used to serve plain text, rich text, HTML, Markdown, LaTeX, etc. [0] I think you are referring to the text/gemini format which isn’t a required portion of the IP. [0] https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html