Optional/mandatory whitespace in §5.5 Advanced line types

Prior reading:

=> https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, ?5.5 
Advanced line types

I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and three 
different whitespace handling verbiages for each.

Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace.
List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!)
Quote lines: Start with ?>? 

Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing?

Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+):

- It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting 
that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes 
like Markdown does)
- It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or *
- ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of authors 
writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag
- We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much 
gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant 
documents to match something like this.

- - - -

I could see myself wanting an H4-equivalent or higher, but I?m not certain 
this is _quite_ the right time to mention it. Also the current spec 
already seems to say that clients should parse ?#### Eggs? as not-a-heading.

Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> writes:

> Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the 
> same phrasing?
>
> Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+):

Fwiw, i support this. Lately i've been spending a lot of time and 
energy on format conversions, and the more consistent the syntax, 
the easier it is to parse, and the less i have to rely on kludgy 
heuristics.


Alexis.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 07:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Galt wrote:
> I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and 
three different whitespace handling verbiages for each.
> 
> Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace.
> List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!)
> Quote lines: Start with ?>? 
> 
> Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing?

I'm inclined to agree.

> Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+):
> 
> - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting 
that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes 
like Markdown does)
> - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or *
> - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of 
authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag
> - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much 
gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant 
documents to match something like this.

Let's also consider the other way these three cases could have the same
whitespace rules, which is to make that whitespace always optional
rather than always required.

Pros of all-optional whitespace:
- Parsing is one step simpler than requiring at least one whitespace
  character.
- Parsing is compatible with existing Gemtext. (I also think this is not
  that big of a deal, but let's list it.)

Cons:
- At the beginning of an intended plain text line, some common forms of
  expression like "*Foo*", "#Foo", and ">_<" would be interpreted as
  list items, headings, or quotations.

?and that's all I've got. Having thought through it, I think mandatory
whitespace sounds like a better choice.

I agree with mandatory whitespace except for when quoting empty lines.

Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> writes:

> Prior reading:
>
> => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, 
?5.5 Advanced line types
>
> I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and 
three different whitespace handling verbiages for each.
>
> Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace.
> List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!)
> Quote lines: Start with ?>? 
>
> Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing?
>
> Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+):
>
> - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting 
that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes 
like Markdown does)
> - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or *
> - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of 
authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag
> - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have much 
gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own non-conformant 
documents to match something like this.
>
> - - - -
>
> I could see myself wanting an H4-equivalent or higher, but I?m not 
certain this is _quite_ the right time to mention it. Also the current 
spec already seems to say that clients should parse ?#### Eggs? as not-a-heading.

Ooh, good catch.

Agreed.

> On Sep 12, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Sandra Snan <sandra.snan at idiomdrottning.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree with mandatory whitespace except for when quoting empty lines.
> 
> Nathan Galt <mailinglists at ngalt.com> writes:
> 
>> Prior reading:
>> 
>> => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, 
?5.5 Advanced line types
>> 
>> I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and 
three different whitespace handling verbiages for each.
>> 
>> Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace.
>> List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!)
>> Quote lines: Start with ?>? 
>> 
>> Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing?
>> 
>> Here?s my argument for ?mandatory whitespace for all? ([\t ]+):
>> 
>> - It lets authors write ?#3. I like eggs.? without accidentally getting 
that line parsed as if it were a heading (we don?t have backslash escapes 
like Markdown does)
>> - It?s better for some emoticons that, um, might be out there that start with > or *
>> - ?#Steak? looks like a hashtag, and I could see some fraction of 
authors writing ?#blah? _meaning_ for it to be a tag
>> - We shouldn?t be worried about backcompat at v0.14.2. I don?t have 
much gemini text, but I?m the sort who would reformat his own 
non-conformant documents to match something like this.
>> 
>> - - - -
>> 
>> I could see myself wanting an H4-equivalent or higher, but I?m not 
certain this is _quite_ the right time to mention it. Also the current 
spec already seems to say that clients should parse ?#### Eggs? as not-a-heading.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20200912/3e3c
735c/attachment.htm>

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 07:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Galt wrote:

Hi!

> Prior reading:
>
> => https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html The Spec, 
?5.5 Advanced line types
>
> I noticed that the spec has three different advanced line types and 
three different whitespace handling verbiages for each.
>
> Heading lines: Start with 1?3 ?#?, then optional whitespace.
> List items: Start with ?* ? (note the space!)
> Quote lines: Start with ?>?
> Shouldn?t these three have the same whitespace rules, with the same phrasing?

Correct me if i am wrong but we already discussed that in the mailing list?

gemini://gemi.dev/gemini-mailing-list/messages/002312.gmi

Bye!
C.