I don't see how it's how it's underspecified. In particular, I don't see why anyone should assume &-separated values. The spec refers to IETF RFC 3986, which doesn't at all concern how to encode multiple values. It simple describes the query as a segment of a URI starting with a "?" and ending with the end of the URI or a fragment marker "#". The spec makes it clear that the input should be included as a query component. There can only be one RFC 3986 query component. Possibly calling it *the* query component instead would be a useful clarification for people who are not so familiar with RFC 3986. If a server wants to produce a e.g. a form with multiple input queries, accumulating a form state throughout, they can encode the state of the completed parts of the form in the path segment and serve a redirect after each input. If this is a new feature that people want, I think it should be discussed as such. To say that it's underspecified is however just wishful thinking. -- Philip On 3/20/21, Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Frank Jüdes once stated: >> Hi fellow Geminauts, >> >> i am fairly new to the gemini protocol, but already like the simplicity >> of everything, compared to the complexity of "modern" websites. >> >> Currently i am using the Jetforce server and several clients (Kristal, >> Lagrange, Geminaut) and trying to wrap my head around the /input/ >> status-code: >> >> * Upon first invocation my cgi-script figures out that the >> /QUERY_STRING/ is empty and responds with /10 Please enter some data/ >> * The client is prompting for some data and re-requesting the URL with >> the data attached: [URL]?Some Data >> * My CGI program detects that there is some data in the URL and >> responds with /10 Please enter some more data/ >> * Upon which the client asks me to enter some more data and >> re-requests the URL, but only with the /some more data/ attached to >> the URL >> The data that was already attached to the URL will be replaced with >> the new data. >> >> Is that the intended functionality? >> >> It is only possible to use one parameter? > > It's underspecified, and it's a current issue: > > https://gitlab.com/gemini-specification/protocol/-/issues/19 > >> That definitely would make parsing the URL somewhat easier, but would >> require some creativity in the CGI if more than one parameter is needed. > > Yes, and it depends upon the quality of implementation of the CGI spec. > >> Can somebody please explain this to me in a nutshell? Thank you very >> much in advance for your help. > > Unfortunately, it's an open issue. I'm [1] leaning towards appending the > new output (option #2 on the issue) but the spec needs to be updated first. > > -spc > > [1] Disclaimer: speaking with my BDFLA [2] hat here. > > [2] Benevelent Dictator For Life's Assistant. > >
---
Previous in thread (2 of 4): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)
Next in thread (4 of 4): 🗣️ Hugo Wetterberg (hugo (a) wetterberg.nu)