Proposed minor spec changes, for comment.

[✈個展]

But is it a zero sum game like that really (either make it hard on server
authors or make it hard on content authors)?

The would-be Gemini content author at this point in the game will be
someone who either has created an SSH key and SSHed into a pubnix, used Git
to send their content to a Dome style server or used sftp to upload their
hand written Gemini text.

Is it truly making their life harder to enter:

gemini fmt mytext.gemini<Enter>

and thereby save the server and client authors from having to do all of
that checking logic? They're still are many other ways they can enjoy the
moving target development against an evolving spec aren't there?

:)

I hope my idea doesn't seem hostile somehow, because it's not intended to
be in any way. I just figure save everybody effort and complexity,
everybody wins… feed two birds with one seed.

Thanks

On Thu, May 21, 2020, 16:52 solderpunk <solderpunk at sdf.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:28:19PM -0500, ✈個展 wrote:
>
> > The people who are writing the server and client software are doing a
> huge
> > service to the Gemini community, so please don't saddle them with the
> > admittedly tedious work of writing code to check in the server and then
> > check again in the client if it is an improper combination of CR, LF or
> CR
> > LF and then even more code to re-conform it.
>
> I'd rather make life a little harder for developers - who are
> technical people who know what a CR and LF are and are, anyway, signing
> up for a bit of fiddly detail by undertaking to implement an internet
> protocol from scratch - than make life harder for content authors, who
> may have no idea what this nonsense is all about and are arguably doing
> an even bigger service for the community by providing something to use
> our present abundance of servers and clients to read.
>
> Sorry if this seems blunt!
>
> Cheers,
> Solderpunk
>
> > seems to go against the 100 lines of code, code it in a weekend Gemini
> > spirit in my opinion.
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020, 16:18 Martin Keegan <martin at no.ucant.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 21 May 2020, solderpunk wrote:
> > >
> > > > We basically need to choose between forcing server authors to
> normalise
> > > > all endings to CRLF or forcing client authors to recgonise LF (even
> > > > though it'll probably never be seen in the wild).
> > >
> > > Could we have a bit of a breather to allow the implications to sink in,
> > > and, critically, to allow the development of conformance testing tools?
> > >
> > > If there were a tool which could be run on a document, that confirmed
> that
> > > it was conformant, and a similar tool for server behaviour, and people
> > > had had some time to try to integrate these with the existing
> > > software, it'd be easier to assess the tradeoffs involved in the spec
> > > decision.
> > >
> > > Mk
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Keegan, +44 7779 296469, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20200521/0569461b/attachment.htm>