On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 15:33:31 +0000 khuxkm at tilde.team wrote: > I think this is an apples to oranges comparison; 5.5.2 has to do with > the text/gemini media type, which, while it is a part of the spec, > isn't protocol based (i.e; I could serve text/gemini on a web server > if I really wanted to) I'm referring to this in the context of the spec, not the protocol itself. > Just for the sake of it, I really want to try and make a remote shell > in Gemini CGI, just to prove a point. You can do it already, with the > protocol as-is; send the command as a query to a CGI endpoint Great, that'd be a creative way to make use of the limitations of a protocol instead of suggesting adding more. > Okay, but with all due respect, what does that have to do with > content size? CGI isn't going to help the fact that the protocol > currently has no way to indicate "this is how big the response will > be" or "this is the hash of the file". Those questions, at least in > my opinion, need to be answered at the protocol level, unless we're > going to make a .well-known for Gemini. With all due respect, EOF should be an indicator.
---
Previous in thread (40 of 48): 🗣️ khuxkm (a) tilde.team (khuxkm (a) tilde.team)
Next in thread (42 of 48): 🗣️ Martin Keegan (martin (a) no.ucant.org)