On 2/22/21 9:06 AM, Vasilii Kolobkov wrote: > The specification has URLs for link lines. Is that an intentional > choice over a broader URI category? > > I'm thinking about using text/gemini outside Gemini protocol and > would likely use some form of URNs for links. There is also a > lovely urn:isbn: namespace that's left behind. I cannot read Solderpunk's mind of course, but I strongly suspect the exclusion is unintentional, because I can't think of anything wrong with URNs in gemtext. As Oliver Simmons says, it is already being done. It would be nearly impossible to keep URNs out anyway: URNs and URLs use the same URI syntax, so one cannot generally tell whether a URI is a URN or a URL without understanding the scheme. I guess it should maybe be changed to say "URI" in the spec. -- pjvm
---
Previous in thread (2 of 3): 🗣️ Oliver Simmons (oliversimmo (a) gmail.com)