Gemini deserves some credit for writing a spec and for trying, even if it has many issues. I hope Gemini improves based on this kind of review and critics.
Does it? Seems like its just Gopher’s spec rewritten by people with very little knowhow of how you write a spec properly. Only thing they seem to have done competently is the spec for the page rendering-format (…which they accomplished by copying Markdown… and which Daniel points out, should not be part of the protocol-spec), everything else in the spec seems like every client YOLOs.
Yes, they do because it’s feeding the discussion on leaner Internet technology.
You’re right in that Gemini has many issues and isn’t viable as-is. It’s clearly incomplete and early-draft quality, lots would need to be changed based on implementation feedback, including Daniel Stenberg’s feedback.
As mentioned my bet is on a subset of web tech, not Gemini. Gemini appear right now to be a playground for implementation to work on UI, markdown use as HTML replacement, … but doesn’t provide a viable protocol.
Does it? Seems like its just Gopher’s spec rewritten by people with very little knowhow of how you write a spec properly. Only thing they seem to have done competently is the spec for the page rendering-format (…which they accomplished by copying Markdown… and which Daniel points out, should not be part of the protocol-spec), everything else in the spec seems like every client YOLOs.
Yes, they do because it’s feeding the discussion on leaner Internet technology.
You’re right in that Gemini has many issues and isn’t viable as-is. It’s clearly incomplete and early-draft quality, lots would need to be changed based on implementation feedback, including Daniel Stenberg’s feedback.
As mentioned my bet is on a subset of web tech, not Gemini. Gemini appear right now to be a playground for implementation to work on UI, markdown use as HTML replacement, … but doesn’t provide a viable protocol.