💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 001478.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 01:51:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
colecmac at protonmail.com colecmac at protonmail.com
Wed Jun 10 02:09:34 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I agree, this makes sense. Servers should be able to handle and ignore it, butclients should not be sending it at all either. The client I'm working on juststrips it out of any URL. It'd be nice to see this explained in the spec.
makeworld
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:29 PM, Luke Emmet <luke at marmaladefoo.com> wrote:
On 09-Jun-2020 21:26, solderpunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:20:12PM +0200, Petite Abeille wrote:
Aha! I see what you mean now. Yes, this could be handled solely on the client side. Thanks for the clarification.
Still, no harm down if the fragment hit the server, right? Or?
I guess robust servers should tolerate this without throwing an error.
Cheers,
Solderpunk
Yes servers should definitely ignore any such fragment, which should
not be sent to the server.
The query part of the URI is for server processing, the fragment is
always client side only as far as I understand it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier
- L