> I think there is some confusion in this thread. Here is my > interpretation, maybe it can help clarify the conversation. > > There are two "types" of link we are talking about. > 1. The link lines in gemtext files (the line types beginning =>) > [snip] > 2. The URL submitted to the server with the client request. I was only talking about the first kind in my email. I'm fine with the change to the request URL. > I think to clarify, if there is no scheme > on the URL sent to the server, it is the server that should respond > with an error (after all it is not a valid full URL that is submitted). > > If there is no scheme on the expressed link in the gemtext (type 1 > above), the client should interpret it as a relative path, unless it > starts "//" Yes, I agree with all of this. I take issue with two parts: > Clients MAY treat schemeless links in text/gemini documents as errors and > Authors of Gemini content or software which generates Gemini content > MUST add explicit schemes to any schemeless links. I think both of these changes are not great, as I explained in my original email. It effectively disallows schemeless links in gemtext, which I'm not in favour of. makeworld
---
Previous in thread (8 of 27): 🗣️ Luke Emmet (luke (a) marmaladefoo.com)
Next in thread (10 of 27): 🗣️ Luke Emmet (luke (a) marmaladefoo.com)