[spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions

[Omar Polo]

I didn't want to continue this thread, but after your reply to Sean I
think I have to at least clear a misunderstanding I caused.

Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane@sources.org> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 07:03:18PM +0200,
>  Omar Polo <op@omarpolo.com> wrote 
>  a message of 46 lines which said:
>
>> the stagnation of the gitlab repo has somehow proven that, after
>> all, gemini is quite finished.  Yes, we have some doubts on how to
>> handle some edge cases, but globally the community has more or less
>> settled on how things should be and that's that.)
>
> I disagree with this assessment. The specification is still in poor
> shape, many cases are not documented, there is no agreement on very
> important things like TLS close notify or IDN and, even when there is,
> it is not documented so newcomers cannot get it, they have to rely on
> the hidden knowledge of some old timers. Hardly satisfying.

I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't work on fixing the
specification, and I deeply apologise if I seemed to suggest that.  I
phrased that mail poorly.

I let my dissatisfaction speak.  I guess I have to step back and think a
bit.  I'm all for fixing all the corner cases and transform it into
something more rigorous, but just got tired of how things developed
(even before the gitlab move.)  I'm not trying to lessen my fault here
thought, even if I was fed up with the situation I shouldn't let my
frustration out like that.

Once again, I'm sorry.

> (Not documenting thing is a common way to keep power.)