On Mon Nov 30, 2020 at 11:03 PM CET, Solderpunk wrote: > > No, you are right, I misread his email. I personally think he made a > > mistake here in removing relative links (which include schemeless links) > > from text/gemini. > > Oh, gosh darn it. I obviously didn't mean to do that. This is what I > get for trying to squeeze spec changes into small slices of free time. > Sorry, everyone. I will fix this tomorrow. ...wait. I didn't actually remove relative links at all. That's a relief. I was tired when I saw Sean's email and assumed the first! I just went through everything again. My email to this list explaining the changes I made didn't square up with the actual changes I made to the spec. Sorry for the confusion. To be very clear, relative links are absolutely still permitted in text/gemini documents, and in fact even schemeless links are still permitted in text/gemini documents. The only actual change to the spec that pertains to => links is that I removed the part saying that if there was no scheme the client should assume one of gemini://. This, I think, is actually fine - see Alex Schroeder's post on the nice use of these rare kind of link for serving text/gemini over other protocols: gemini://alexschroeder.ch/page/2020-11-30_Gemini_specification_changes_in_a _disagreeable_way Schemeless links are only forbidden in requests, i.e. what a client sends to a server. Sorry again for the confusion. I hope this won't happen again, and I hope it would also be obvious, but for the record, where a change to the spec and my announcement to the spec don't match up, the actual spec document is, of course, authoritative. Cheers, Solderpunk
---
Previous in thread (26 of 27): 🗣️ Philip Linde (linde.philip (a) gmail.com)