~aw/flounder

[alex@alexwennerberg.com: Re: Is Gempub support possible?]

Details
Message ID
<YRHiu/Ds5jbYqAfz@localhost.lan>
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Forgot to CC the mailing list!

----- Forwarded message from Alex Wennerberg <alex@alexwennerberg.com> -----

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 19:20:28 -0700
From: Alex Wennerberg <alex@alexwennerberg.com>
To: Andrew Singleton <singletona082@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Gempub support possible?
Message-ID: <YRHiaP5FHkiBu/0N@localhost.lan>

Hi Andrew!

Gempub is very interesting, however, I've not been working much on
Flounder lately, so supporting a large new feature like this is not on
my project plan, I'm more focused on resolving outstanding issues.
However, I think it's a cool idea and I wouldn't be opposed to it!

All the best,

Alex

On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 02:08:43PM -0500, Andrew Singleton wrote:
> https://codeberg.org/oppenlab/gempub
> 
> I'm making this proposal on the idea that archiving parts of a gemini
> site into gempub could ease burdens on limited per user resources.
> Persons wanting to use the format as specified in the linked
> documentation would very likely have to adjust their link locations to
> account, but it should cut down on per-capsule file clutter, and allow
> for more space for content.
> 
> As example: I have written several novels and story collections who's
> text is on my capsule. This feature would allow me to condense several
> dozen files into five or six.
> 
> Second example: Someone with an active gemlog can archive their posts
> to gempub at regular periods to reduce file clutter and space while
> keeping archived content in a readable format.
> 
> I know lagrange supports gempub, I am fairly certain other clients
> also support this standard, but even if not gempub is a renamed zip
> with specific top level files and directory names for the sake of
> sorting, metadata, and standardization for readers.
> 
> I do not see this as something to offer for entire user capsules, but
> rather allow it as a way to archive large amounts of content that may
> not be regularly accessed.
> 
> The one problem that presents itself is 'how would the proxy handle
> this?' Since the only thought that comes to mind is the proxy reading
> the gempub file and parsing the document as if it were an archived set
> of webpages so the end user experiences no real loss or change in
> functionality. Unfortunately I'm unsure that wouldn't that just
> introduce its own set of problems.
> 
> Thoughts?

----- End forwarded message -----
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)