💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005110.gmi captured on 2024-02-05 at 11:14:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Proposal to drop double slashes from URL syntax

Alex // nytpu alex at nytpu.com

Tue Feb 9 20:59:09 GMT 2021

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, to my understanding removing them does not violate the standard.

For example, `tel:+1-816-555-1212` and `magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:...` are

valid URIs.The URI standard[1] says that if an "authority" is present in a URI, itMUST be preceded by "//". If an authority is not present, itMUST NOT be preceded by two forward slashes. A magnet link does nothave an authority because it is content addressed via a peer to peernetwork, and an authority is only used when one central authority (forinstance the IANA for domain names) dictates the allocation andstructure of identifiers within that space.

[1]: RFC3986, in particular:https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-A (ABNF of a URI)https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2 (Description of an authority)

There is some confusion regarding the terms URI and URL. The W3C tries

to clear that up[0].The W3C deals exclusively with http and its derivative protocols (https,etc), so we are not held to standards they pass (although weunfortunately have to deal with the fallout sometimes).

It used to be that they ment different things in what they call the

"classical view" but this difference isn't as dominant anymore in the

"contemporary view". In my understanding, a scheme, which would be

`gemini:`, can define upon its own what it expects after the colon.

You can find more registered schemes here, some of which require a

double-slash, some don't.In conversational terms, or even in technical discussion byimplementers, yes they have different meanings than they used to.However, when you're dealing with standards, you have to use formallydefined words and as such the "classical" meanings of URI/URL/URN arewhat is generally used on /this list/ because we^Weveryone else loves tobikeshed the spec a lot.

Also, the gemini spec specifically says:

This scheme is syntactically compatible with the generic URI syntax

defined in RFC 3986, ut does not support all components of the generic

syntax. In particular, the authority component is allowed and

required.https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.html Section 1.2

Now, this is obviously what you're talking about changing, but there'sgood reasons to be compliant with the URI spec (which, as previouslymentioned, mandates "//" precedes an authority). The most compellingreason being that there's a URI library for every programming languagethat's ever been used in the past 30 years, and a main goal of gemini isto reuse existing specifications where it's not necessary to save peoplethe trouble of having to roll their own everything. This is the samereason that gemini uses DNS and TLS despite their respective problems.They already exist, they're standardized, and they're well used byeveryone already.

I hope I don't seem rude here, I'm just trying to lay out the generalposition clearly.

~nytpu

-- Alex // nytpualex at nytpu.comGPG Key: https://www.nytpu.com/files/pubkey.ascKey fingerprint: 43A5 890C EE85 EA1F 8C88 9492 ECCD C07B 337B 8F5Bhttps://useplaintext.email/-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: signature.ascType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 833 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210209/570849bc/attachment.sig>