If this is being developed, it should have a more modern description. Comparing it to Gopher is fine as a historical point, but comparing it to http/html is more useful today. I read the faq for geeks and didn't learn much:

> 1.1.1 The dense, jargony answer for geeks in a hurry

> Gemini is an application-level client-server internet protocol for the distribution of arbitrary files, with some special consideration for serving a lightweight hypertext format which facilitates linking between hosted files. Both the protocol and the format are deliberately limited in capabilities and scope, and the protocol is technically conservative, being built on mature, standardised, familiar, "off-the-shelf" technologies like URIs, MIME media types and TLS. Simplicity and finite scope are very intentional design decisions motivated by placing a high priority on user autonomy, user privacy, ease of implementation in diverse computing environments, and defensive non-extensibility. In short, it is something like a radically stripped down web stack. See section 4 of this FAQ document for questions relating to the design of Gemini.

Annoyed that for a system about plain text links, there's no link to "section 4".

The transport sounds like http without saying so. It doesn't go into why it doesn't use http. I'd probably be fine with HTTP and Markdown + image/video links. Maybe the Gemini document capabilities/scope is better but they're not described.

Edit: they are in "4.1.2"[0] Be warned, there's still a lot of beating-around-the-bush.

> 4.1.2 I'm familiar with HTTP and HTML. How is Gemini different?

[0] https://geminiprotocol.net/docs/faq.gmi#412-im-familiar-with...

Edit 2: Seems opinionated in many stupid-by-todays-needs ways. It feels like text-web made by some group of deniers.