💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000218.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 17:08:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ahoy, Geminauts! I have just made the proposed spec changes that I asked for comment on over the just past weekend official. SUMMARY OF CHANGES:
Sounds good! Can this be updated on the website? makeworld ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, June 15, 2020 12:13 PM, solderpunk <solderpunk at SDF.ORG> wrote: > Ahoy, Geminauts! > > I have just made the proposed spec changes that I asked for comment on > over the just past weekend official. > > SUMMARY OF CHANGES: > > - A gemini:// URI scheme is formally defined for the first time, > explicitly disallowing the use of the userinfo subcomponent of the > authority component. > > - The client certificate system has been substantially simplified, with > transient certificates no long a formally defined concept with > prescribed behaviour. > > - A lightweight notion of alt text for pre-formatted content has been > introduced as a tentative step toward fixing the worst search and > accessibility related problems with pre-formatted non-textual content. > No special structures or semantics for alt text are defined - if a > convention for doing this organically arises in the community it may > become a recommended best practice. > > - A few minor corrections and tidyups. > > IMPLICATIONS FOR SERVER AUTHORS: > > Servers SHOULD return status 59 (BAD REQUEST) if they receive a request > for a gemini:// URL containing a userinfo subcomponent. If you really > want to be hyper-Postelian, you MAY instead strip out the userinfo so > that, for example, it does not end up in logs, is not passed to CGI > apps, etc. > > IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIENT AUTHORS: > > Clients should either refuse to follow gemini:// links with userinfo > subcomponents, or should strip out the userinfo before following the > link. > > Clients with support for client certificates should adapt to the new > simplified specification, which may involve e.g. removing support for > the deprecated status code 21. > > Clients may do something with alt text. This is probably most relevant > to search engines and accessibility-focussed clients, but I suppose e.g. > graphical clients may wish to support web browser style hover over > display. Strictly optional in all cases. > > IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTENT AUTHORS: > > If you have authored content which includes gemini:// links with > userinfo subcomponents, you MUST remove the userinfo. > > You may wish to add alt text to preformatted content which is not > meaningfully screen readable or search engine indexable. > > Cheers, > Solderpunk >
Whoops, sorry! I totally forgot that's a seprate process now, since the reformatting of the spec to actually be a text/gemini document! It's done now, thanks for the reminder. Cheers, Solderpunk On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 07:02:22PM +0000, colecmac at protonmail.com wrote: > Sounds good! Can this be updated on the website? > > makeworld
---
Previous Thread: CSRF in Gemini
Next Thread: Repeating the Web's Mistakes (was gemini+submit:// (was R Uploading Gemini content))