=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_[SPEC-CHANGE]_lang_parameter, _minor_line_type_changes, _cla?= rifications...

[Case Duckworth]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, at 8:24 AM, Frank LENORMAND wrote:

> How are clients supposed to render words that are censored with asterisks?
> 
> Consider:
> 
> *ssh*le
> 
> The spec was modified to make sure clients understand the above isn't a
> bullet item. Therefore writers are indirectly allowed by the standard to
> influence the rendering, otherwise there would have been no conflict to
> address in the first place.
> 
> So clients will render the above as "sshle", which isn't the writer's
> intent. Only a matter of time until you see writers start escaping asterisks
> in texts:
> 
> \*ssh\*le
> 
> And now, because you've put the responsibility of dealing with a concept
> that the standard implies is allowed, some clients will render the above
> either verbatim, or have a concept of escaping, the latter being against
> the philosophy of Gemini, from what I gather.
> 
> You can't pretend clients will fill-in the gaps by themselves if the
> specification isn't pedantic about it.

AFAICT most clients do nothing with in-text formatting, and in fact if the document type is text/gemini they *should* not. text/gemini *only* specifies the 6 line-types for possibilities of special rendering, which means that your example of '*ssh*le' will render exactly as '*ssh*le' -- no escaping needed. If the mimetype is text/markdown, clients *could* render it differently, but text/markdown has its own escaping rules that a client would follow.

-- Case (acdw)