> This is, more and more, how I'm conceptualising things. > Parsing/validating IRIs is not actually remotely difficult at all. > Algorithmically it's an extremely minor change to parsing/validating > URIs. The apparent pain exists only because the world has apparently > been very slow about packaging code up for this into major > libraries/languages, probably because HTTP's ASCII-only nature reduces > demand. If we adopt IRIs, I would actually encourage Gemini software > authors who find their language lacking tools for this not to write > custom code for it that lives only in their software, but to actually > try to get the functionality accepted upstream into standard libraries, > or widely used third-party libraries. This is generally useful > functionality that's in no way Gemini-specific, and having easy support > for it everywhere makes the world a better place regardless of whether > Gemini thrives or declines. > > I don't really think the alleged difficulty of handling IRIs is a good > argument against accepting them. I'm now more interested in > learning/thinking about normalisation issues, which have been relatively > under discussed so far. It's possible this is where the real trouble > lies. Breaking a UTF-8 IRI up into (scheme, authority, path) is not a > substantial hurdle. This is enough of a decision for me, so I'm out. I'm not one to stand in the way of "progress", however misguided, so I've taken down my 4 gemini servers. bie
---
Previous in thread (83 of 109): 🗣️ Solderpunk (solderpunk (a) posteo.net)
Next in thread (85 of 109): 🗣️ Solderpunk (solderpunk (a) posteo.net)