Scheme Section 2 quibble

• 🗣️ From: Philip Linde (linde.philip (a) gmail.com)
• 📅 Sent: 2020-11-18 15:46
• 📧 Message 28 of 31

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 20:59:53 +0530
Sudipto Mallick <smallick.dev at gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting and good summary, Sudipto.

> "//$host"
>     31 -> 55% (!)
>     20 -> 29%
>     59 -> 12%
>     51 -> 7.7%

There is probably some overlap here with hosts that generally serve
redirects for empty paths.

> "gemini://$host"
>     31 -> 57.6% (!!)
>     20 -> 34%
>     30 -> 1.6%
> 
> "gemini://$host/"
>     20 -> 93%

This is alarming IMO. I have expressed it before in the mailing list,
but because of the normalization rules of RFC 3986, an empty path is

	
equivalent* to the path "/". Serving a 3x redirect on one and a page on

the other is wrong.

In this case it's likely rather benign that they serve different
content, because I assume that a client will arrive at the same resource
after following a redirect, but it has to be understood that a client
might make these generalizations as well, in which case that client
can't access the resource that's served when requesting an empty path.

It would be interesting to figure out which server software is the
culprit.

-- 
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201118/d05d
497b/attachment.sig>

---

Previous in thread (27 of 31): 🗣️ Sudipto Mallick (smallick.dev (a) gmail.com)

Next in thread (29 of 31): 🗣️ Remco (me (a) rwv.io)

View entire thread.