💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000635.gmi captured on 2024-06-16 at 13:59:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi, I understand there were a lot of discussions surrounding how IDNs should be implemented. I'm trying to implement IDNs right now, but I don't get which approach I'm supposed to use. According to gemini://gemini.bortzmeyer.org/gemini/iri.gmi , the primary two options seem like 1. only using punycode for DNS 2. using punycode for DNS and the Gemini server It seems like the spec hasn't been updates on this, so which method would be the best for compatibility with servers? Sorry if I'm missing something, or if this has already been announced previously. -- Thanks, Karmanyaah Malhotra https://karmanyaah.malhotra.cc/contact/ gemini://gemini.malhotra.cc/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210123/8da5 350f/attachment.sig>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:25:37PM -0500, Karmanyaah Malhotra <karmanyaahm at gmail.com> wrote a message of 58 lines which said: > I'm trying to implement IDNs right now, but I don't get > which approach I'm supposed to use. No decision has been taken yet, so there is not an "official" way of doing IDN in Gemini. It's probably the biggest issue in the temporary specification. > It seems like the spec hasn't been updates on this, so which method > would be the best for compatibility with servers? Today, it seems the majority of the servers expect an URI, not an IRI. So you have to send ASCII-only requests (despite what the temporary specification says).
Hello, As Stephane says, there's no official decision yet. But option 2 is definitely the way to go. The Gemini spec requires the usage of URLs currently, and URLs cannot have any Unicode in them. Good luck with your implementation! makeworld
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 06:16:53PM +0000, colecmac at protonmail.com <colecmac at protonmail.com> wrote a message of 11 lines which said: > But option 2 is definitely the way to go. There is no consensus on that. > The Gemini spec requires the usage of URLs currently, and URLs > cannot have any Unicode in them. The Gemini specification precisely says the opposite when it mentions "UTF-8 URLs". And, anyway, the specification is not final yet.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 2:23 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane at sources.org> wrote: > The Gemini specification precisely says the opposite when it mentions > "UTF-8 URLs". And, anyway, the specification is not final yet. > It depends on what you think that means; it's not a standard expression. I interpret it as meaning URLs in which sequences of escaped characters can be interpreted as UTF-8: that is, "gemini://example.com/Julius/C%c3%a6sar" is a UTF-8 URL, whereas "gemini://example.com/Julius/C%e6sar" is not. John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org The present impossibility of giving a scientific explanation is no proof that there is no scientific explanation. The unexplained is not to be identified with the unexplainable, and the strange and extraordinary nature of a fact is not a justification for attributing it to powers above nature. --The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "telepathy" (1913) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20210124/48de 4fd1/attachment.htm>
>> The Gemini spec requires the usage of URLs currently, and URLs >> cannot have any Unicode in them. > > The Gemini specification precisely says the opposite when it mentions > "UTF-8 URLs". And, anyway, the specification is not final yet. Solderpunk has said before that this wording was a mistake, as URLs can only be ASCII as defined by RFC. Therefore they cannot contain IDNs. makeworld
> On Jan 24, 2021, at 22:30, colecmac at protonmail.com wrote: > > Solderpunk has said before that this wording was a mistake, as URLs can only be > ASCII as defined by RFC. Therefore they cannot contain IDNs. An IRI is an URL. But an URI is not an IRI. Either way, how is the final version of the spec coming along? ?0?
---