💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005669.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 09:56:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Linde linde.philip at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 10:47:14 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 19:09:30 -0500Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:
There's a semantic difference between a URL that ends with a '/' and one
that doesn't. The one that ends with a '/' is semantically a directory,
According to what spec? "The path component contains data, usuallyorganized in hierarchical form" (RFC 3986). A URI with a trailing slashmay or may not represent a directory. It may or may not refer to thesame resource as the URI wihout the trailing slash. None of it isspecified. The idea of an URI path as analogous to a filesystem path canbe useful (RFC 3986 uses the file system analogy to describedot-segments), but is ultimately just an analogy.
In this case I think it's important to note the difference between apersonal opinion (yours being that there is a semantic differencebetween URIs with and without trailing slashes) and specification (RFC3986's being that there's a syntactic difference but no specifiedsemantic difference, and only a short note about the semantic meaningof a path as containing "data, usually organized in hierarchical form").
and
to have to add a file per directory to get all URLs to end with a '/' is, in
my opinion, silly.
Agreed. I've suggested pattern-based path rewrites and rules before,like Apache or Nginx do. That time I think the question was about how tobest serve multilingual content.
-- Philip-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 488 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210226/e6ca4982/attachment.sig>