💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 001021.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 02:10:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brian Evans b__m__e at mailfence.com
Sun May 24 18:11:09 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
According to RFC3986:
The URI syntax provides a method of encoding data, presumably for the
sake of identifying a resource, as a sequence of characters. The URI
characters are, in turn, frequently encoded as octets for transport
or presentation. This specification does not mandate any particular
character encoding for mapping between URI characters and the octets
used to store or transmit those characters. When a URI appears in a
protocol element, the character encoding is defined by that protocol;
without such a definition, a URI is assumed to be in the same
character encoding as the surrounding text.
Given the above, it seems that it is on gemini to define the encoding usedfor URIs.
I particular this passage:
This specification does not mandate any particular
character encoding for mapping between URI characters and the octets
used to store or transmit those characters.
To my knowledge gopher does not URL encode querystrings (such that theyare in gopher - not generally compliant with other URI RFCs).
I have left them unencoded in my recent release for Bombadillo in linewith what a perceive to be community standards until that communitystandard changes or the spec explicitly makes clear the expectation.
I imagine Sean will have some good information here to bring to the table,as he has read various RFCs in greater detail than I have. If anyone, not justSean, thinks I have misinterpreted the above mentioned RFC or that thereis not a need for a clear and explicit rule for how queries should be encodedin the spec, please let me know.