Documents with mixed languages

[DJ Chase]

On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 23:48 +0100, Philip Linde wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:38:12 +0000, Krixano <krixano@protonmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Again, I was never against making the spec more explicit and up to par
> > with what was intended. What I am for is not judging implementations
> > for using an intended design of the protocol (even if it's not in the
> > spec!) when a spec isn't even final yet.
> 
> It's the document we have as a basis for writing clients. If it's
> wrong, it's wrong. That can be fixed. But telling me that I should dig
> through old gopher holes and mailing list archives just to get a sense
> of Solderpunk's general opinion on streaming request responses, and
> interpret that opinion as a canonical part of the standard is not a
> viable basis for a standard.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Gemini's current state. Right
now, there is no standard; we have a specification, but it is not yet
standardized. Yes, email archives and old phlogs is not a viable basis
for a standard. That is why the spec is being revised - so that it can
become a standard without the previously-mentioned issues.

Cheers,
-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs