Hi again Sean, Sean Conner writes: > we have the 'scheme' portion, then the two '//' which means we're following > the first rule in 'hier-part'. 'authority' is the host part (which I didn't > include) followed by a 'path-abempty', of which there can be 0 or more of, > so that's a perfectly cromulent URL. It's the responsibility of the > *server* to handle the situation, not the client. I just read over this again and realised I'd been too hasty in my earlier response. You point out that according to the URI RFC an empty path is a valid URL, and while this is good to know, does the following necessarily follow? > Semantically speaking, these: > > gemini://example.com > gemini://example.com/ > > are the same. For gopher, gopher://example.com/1 and gopher://example.com/1/ are not semantically the same. (Although they are often - but not always - treated as such.) Section 6.2.3 on scheme-based normalization notes that http://example.com and http://example.com/ are semantically equivalent, and goes on to suggest that URIs of other schemes _should_ follow this example. So I suppose we now say that gemini does? plugd
---
Previous in thread (4 of 15): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)
Next in thread (6 of 15): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)