> (Starting a separate thread for this) Thanks, that's helpful. Hopefully all IRI discussion can move here. > Case 3 is the difficult one.? Should authors be allowed to write text/gemini > links with IRI references??It's not that hard for a client to convert them > to URI references.? No normalization is needed except as part of punycoding. > However, everyone has to agree on whether this should work or not; we don't > want a user trying to follow a link and sending the Wrong Thing to the server. "It's not that hard for a client to convert them to URI references. No normalization is needed except as part of punycoding." I don't think that's true. To convert them to a URI reference, the domain needs to be extracted and punycoded, then the path and query string needs to be extracted and percent-encoded in the blessed Gemini way that doesn't allow plus signs. Doing all this requires parsing, and as I explained a couple times in the other thread, IRI parsing is not feasible across multiple programming languages at this time, the libraries just don't exist. And what if the IRI is a relative reference? As I explained in the other thread, this will definitely require IRI parsing. Furthermore, it's breaking change to Gemini. I don't think that's a good idea in any case with the possible exception of TLS security. Gemini must be reliable, and it's too late for a breaking change. > Gemini isn't just supposed to be easy to program for, it's supposed to be easy to > author, too.? Unfortunately these objectives are in conflict here. Yes, and that's unfortunate. But I think it makes sense for the stability of Gemini and the ease of programming to come first. Cheers, makeworld
---
Previous in thread (1 of 32): 🗣️ John Cowan (cowan (a) ccil.org)
Next in thread (3 of 32): 🗣️ John Cowan (cowan (a) ccil.org)