💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005399.gmi captured on 2024-02-05 at 11:11:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Solene Rapenne solene at perso.pw
Sun Feb 21 13:12:50 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 13:06:53 -0000 (UTC)text at sdfeu.org:
Reading about favicon in Gemini by way of an extra request to the host
serving a requested document, I searched for "metadata" in old threads.
It seems to me the quoted message from 2020-11-14 below could serve as a
solution to the debate.
Note that the favicon RFC basically uses this approach itself, stating
some `key: value` pairs within the document.
=
gemini://mozz.us/files/rfc_gemini_favicon.gmi RFC: Adding Emoji
Favicons to Gemini
Why not use this kind of structured metadata lines for an (as per RFC
still unmotivated) favicon convention?
Favicon: #
It seems your are suggesting implementing equivalent of http headersthat are key: values pair and are not part of the document but is transmittedin the reply. Currently gemini only returns the status code, the content typeand potentially the language (this is not mandatory).
That's an endless rabbithole that the Gemini protocol should betternot explore because it allows endless extendability.