Rev. Fr. Robert Bower
frrobert at frrobert.com
Fri Jul 30 20:37:26 BST 2021
My thought in having a common link syntax is authors could create content that could be delivered via gemini or html with no need to do conversion. In fact both servers could use a common set of documents.
On July 29, 2021 8:48:50 PM EDT, Alan <gemini at bunburya.eu> wrote:
>The justification I have seen for the status quo is that, currently, a
>client only needs to examine the first 3(?) characters of a line to
>determine its line type. That's quite elegant and makes it
>exceptionally easy to parse gemtext. This suggestion would break that
>feature and I'm not sure there is any real benefit to doing so.
>What is the motivation here - is it to make gemtext a subset of
>On 29/07/2021 23:57, Robert "khuxkm" Miles wrote:
>> July 28, 2021 4:42 PM, "Omar Polo" <op at omarpolo.com> wrote:
>>> I think this was discussed before, but one of the core point of
>>> text/gemini is the idea of line types: each line has a type and
>>> aren't inline objects.
>> They weren't asking for inline links (emphasis mine):
>> Rev. Fr. Robert Bower <frrobert at frrobert.com> writes:
>>> Would it not be advantageous for content creators for Gemini to
>support both the standard Gemini
>>> syntax of => for links and also support the () markdown syntax for
>links, *limited to links on
>>> their own line?*
>> I, for one, think Gemini links are fine just the way they are, but
>it's food for thought.
>> Just my two cents,
>> Robert "khuxkm" Miles
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
More information about the Gemini