💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 001406.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 01:54:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Luke Emmet luke.emmet at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 22:47:41 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hello all
On 07-Jun-2020 17:27, solderpunk wrote:
The definition of link lines now clarifies that clients "MUST NOT
automatically make any network connections as part of displaying links
whose scheme corresponds to a network protocol (e.g. gemini://,
gopher://, https://, ftp://, etc.)". See section 5.4.2 for full
details.
<snip>
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIENT AUTHORS:
<snip>
If your client has been automatically making network connections you
MUST remove this behaviour and atone for your sins!
I think all the changes are sensible, apart from the wording that tries to specify client behaviour. It is not for the spec IMO to prescribe the client behaviour, rather it should specify the exchange format and markup (both of which it does well).
If a client must not make subsequent network requests when interpreting a page, does this mean that search engines and crawlers are now non-compliant clients? This seems to go much too far.
I would think the "MUST NOT" would be better as a "SHOULD NOT" in case you are adamant to try to shape client behaviour. In my view this is not in scope of a protocol and markup format specification.
Also minor point, I would recommend removing the "atone for your sins" sentence as it is overly informal for a spec.
I like the explicit requirements covering URL encoding, lang, and bullets. I wonder how authors will reliably signal the language to the server though, particularly as it may be on a page by page basis.
Otherwise keep up the good work!
Best wishes
- Luke