💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 001543.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 01:48:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
solderpunk solderpunk at SDF.ORG
Thu Jun 11 16:09:12 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:58:45PM +1000, Thomas Karpiniec wrote:
By my reading of RFC 3986 (s3.2) you explicitly have that right:
"Some schemes do not allow the userinfo and/or port subcomponents."
Thanks very much for finding that. I realise it must seem ridiculousthat I'm building on top of these RFCs without having read then in finedetail. I would *love* to have the time to print out the URI, MIME andTLS RFCs, sit down with a coffee and a pen and go through them allclosely, but it's not likely to happen anytime soon. I am grateful tobe able to "crowdsource" some details.
And this is great news. I will update the spec this weekend - tosimplify the client certificate stuff as discussed, but at the same timeI will add a new section defining the Gemini URI scheme and explicitlydisallowing the userinfo component.
Servers receiving a request whose URL contains a userinfo componentshould respond with "59 BAD REQUEST". Clients should strip userinfofrom links in text/gemini documents or status 3x <META> lines. Thenthis nasty loophole is closed.
Cheers,Solderpunk