Unicode vs. the World

[Philip Linde]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:28:00 -0700
Alex // nytpu <alex at nytpu.com> wrote:

> My main complaint I have is how long these threads run, and how they
> completely overtake the mailing list, drowning out pretty much
> everything else. Even if they were arguing about something I
> passionately argue for, I'd still make fun of them because they're so
> long that they're farcical. They're full of people misreading everything
> that's being said (I'm within that group), people that argue about
> something else that's vaguely related but not really. The first thread
> was about IDNs and people immediately started talking about IRIs
> instead! (or maybe vice-versa? I can't keep the two terms straight).

I highly recommend using a client with a clearly threaded overview of
incoming messages. For example, if I am not interested in a particular
thread of discussion, or it has become hard to follow, I can just fold
it away. We should perhaps be better at changing the subject line in
cases where discussion delves into details or strays from the original
topic.

I believe that misreading fills an important function when discussing a
specification; even a fundamentally bad-faith reading is useful. In my
opinion a spec should leave as little room for interpretation as
possible, and misreading exposes these little ambiguities at an earlier
stage where they would otherwise later cause divergent implementations.
It also makes it clear when ideas are more complex than anticipated. I
think we hit an iceberg with IDN/IRI, and we've failed to properly
separate discussion about its rationale from discussion about its
implementation, possibly because Gemini is explicit in that its
rationale also concerns its implementation details (paraphrased: it
should be simple and easy to implement).

> The main reason I wrote this is to clarify that I am firmly against
> changing the spec, no matter how noble the causes, for anything other
> than clarification or typos. There are lots of possibilities that don't
> require a spec change, both in internationalization support and the
> other common mailing list complaints that were long like this thread in
> the past (usually about gemtext's "weaknesses").

I agree with this, at least to the point that changes, if any, should
guarantee forward compatibility with older implementations. Breaking
changes have a high cost and so should be reserved for breaking bugs,
not nice-to-haves or workable practical shortcomings. There are many
features that I think would improve the protocol when thought of as
just features, but would be detrimental when considering the social
burden of formalizing and implementing them. I'll happily trade those
features for a stable and clear spec.

-- 
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201215/8e8d01d7/attachment.sig>