💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000552.gmi captured on 2024-06-16 at 13:41:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/gemtext.gmi> says: =>https://example.com A cool website But the specification <gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.gmi> says: =>[<whitespace>]<URL>[<whitespace><USER-FRIENDLY LINK NAME>] ...
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 1:03 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane at sources.org> wrote: > > <gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/gemtext.gmi> says: > > =>https://example.com A cool website > > But the specification <gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.gmi> says: > > =>[<whitespace>]<URL>[<whitespace><USER-FRIENDLY LINK NAME>] > ... > * <whitespace> is any non-zero number of consecutive spaces or tabs > > So, this link is illegal, no? Immediately below that line in the spec: "Square brackets indicate that the enclosed content is optional." So while <whitespace> itself can't be empty, the token can be omitted which allows for link lines of the form =><URL>[<whitespace><USER-FRIENDLY LINK NAME>] - Michael
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 01:28:00PM -0500, Michael Lazar <lazar.michael22 at gmail.com> wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > Immediately below that line in the spec: > > "Square brackets indicate that the enclosed content is optional." You're right, I've read the spec too quickly. Thanks. Why not using a BNF like ABNF (RFC 5234) in the spec, so we have a formal grammar? gemini://gemini.bortzmeyer.org/rfc-mirror/rfc5234.txt
> On Dec 21, 2020, at 09:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane at sources.org> wrote: > > Why not using a BNF like ABNF (RFC 5234) in the spec, so we have a > formal grammar? Hopefully this is the kind of formalization the protocol can go through once fully finalized and ready for publication. Due diligence & all. From crayon to typewriter.
---