I agree in part, and disagree in part. I like that gemini has a "native" markup format, and that its simple and bare-bones as it is. It's a communications baseline, and other things are negotiable between client and browser?

I think both. But, hey, they are paying attention, I guess?

...or more specifically, re-implemented http 0.9 but with TLS. What here is wrong?

I don't know, are there? I don't know, do you?

I'm waiting for folks to look at gemini, see only part of what they want, and make markdown-native web protocol, a wiki protocol, basically. I think that would be very cool, and it is what drew me to gemini before I figured out it was really super-gopher. Like what if there was a mediawiki protocol? You'd have your tables! Anyway, there's no one stopping anybody for trying to make that happen. The true interwiki promised in the days of c2, could actually happen!... if some people want to make it happen.

You could make a regular http web page for your interactive chart...

It's not better except that a person browsing doesn't know what pages are or aren't done with a simple site generator.

I'd like to say again that by competing with the modern web to do things that gemini isn't good at, gemini gets to lose those contests, and this should limit the success of efforts to to make dancing bears out of gemini.

So you say the "effort". There are 50-some line gemini clients, and more than a few people have coded graphical clients in a few days by themselves. Same with servers. Is modifying firefox or palemoon really going to be a "better spent" effort?

I think screen readers can read text pretty well, also, since you've declared that to be a goal for some reason.

there are gateways if all you want is to peek into gemini web, as several people have noted. How does that ruin anything?