[SPEC-CHANGE] Mandatory scheme in request and link URLs

• 🗣️ From: Philip Linde (linde.philip (a) gmail.com)
• 📅 Sent: 2020-12-01 11:18
• 📧 Message 26 of 27

On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 19:38:21 +0100
"Solderpunk" <solderpunk at posteo.net> wrote:

> On a related note, the spec was also changed in various places so that
> it does not perpetuate the misunderstanding of URL structure by talking
> about "a scheme of gemini://".

This is a welcome change! I also want to suggest clarifying the meaning
of absolute/relative URLs by referring to the corresponding concepts in
RFC 3986. The primary reason for this suggestion is that it may be
unclear whether an "absolute URL" is what RFC 3986 calls an "URI", an
"absolute-URI" or what RFC 1808 calls an "absolute URL", all of which
are subtly different:


	
RFC 3986 "URI" may include a fragment
	
RFC 3986 "absolute-URI" may not include a fragment
	
RFC 1808 "absolute URL" may include a fragment


My understanding is that the intent of the language in the Gemini spec
is to prevent path-only requests (a subset of "relative-ref"). In this
case "URI" or "absolute-URI" are sufficient. If we additionally don't
want to include fragments in requests "absolute-URI" is the only option.

-- 
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/20201201/7c8e
273d/attachment-0001.sig>

---

Previous in thread (25 of 27): 🗣️ Waweic (waweic (a) activ.ism.rocks)

Next in thread (27 of 27): 🗣️ Solderpunk (solderpunk (a) posteo.net)

View entire thread.