Looked into #Gemini protocol yesterday. I like the simplicity, but no inline hyperlinks or image embeds seems to me like artificial handicap in order to it actually get some foothold alongside HTTP. Philosophy of it has probably been hashed in Gemini newsgroups numerous times, but do we really need modern version of Gopher more than less shitty version of modern web.
@toni There's something to be said about the choices made, of course. No inline links (or bold text, italics, tables) makes parsing a magnitude easier. And it forces a different way to think about text. The lack of inline links, specifically, can actually increase the readability of text.
I write my blog in gemtext and convert to HTML, thereby adhering to the limitations of the former. And I quite like the result.
@tinyrabbit Text based blog/log publishing workflows with Gemini seems to play to its strengths. I like that markdown source and the rendered content look so closely alike. I guess I’m wishing something with simplicity and light-weightiness of Gemini that would still support basic text styling and image embeds, and I don’t see why it couldn’t offer fallback to current Gemini style presentation when using text-only browsers.
@toni I definitely get that wish, and I see where you're coming from.
A lot of graphical browser render images inline today, but only when the user clicks a link to them.
But yeah, I hear your wishes and sympathise. However I believe that the closer to the web me make a protocol the less of a place it has as a complement; it just doesn't have a distinguished enough identity.
@toni Gemini isn't intended to replace the web. It's more of a modernization of Gopher. Communication without transport security was becoming increasingly non-viable.
or just a charter for a HTML and HTTP web without all that shit... but just lighter images and hyperlinks
This is a personal Mastodon instance of Toni. Follow me @email@example.com.