[spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions

[Omar Polo]

Devin Prater <r.d.t.prater at gmail.com> writes:

> I'll own that. It would be nice, but I don't see it ever happening because smoll. I mean I respect it, and I guess we'd have to make
> yet another spec for one step up from Gemini but not quite HTML/CSS/JS, but too many standards...

There's one more point that we should probably consider: gemini is
actually something clearly different from the web.  It provides almost a
completely different experience.  We should treasure it.

I mean, if all we do is trying to replicate the web (or being too
similar to it -- first-citizen markdown would do it) why would someone
use Gemini at all?  At that point why don't use the web?

It's sound harsh but how could you sell gemini if it was just a fake
web?

Being different is what can make people want to give it at least a try.
Maybe they end up disliking it and going back to the web, that's fine.
But why even bothering trying something when you know that's only fake?
Meh

> Devin Prater
> r.d.t.prater at gmail.com
> gemini://tilde.pink/~devinprater/
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:56 PM Alex // nytpu <alex at nytpu.com> wrote:
>
>  I thought I was way overstepping my bounds when suggesting multi-level
>  lists for Gemtext in my post but now people want to de-facto require
>  full-fledged markdown in Gemini clients; my simple and miniscule
>  suggestion doesn't seem so bad now lol.
>
>  ~nytpu
>
>  -- 
>  Alex // nytpu
>  alex at nytpu.com
>  gpg --locate-external-key alex at nytpu.com
>  https://useplaintext.email/