Proposal about content-size and hash

[khuxkm at tilde.team]

November 3, 2020 10:42 AM, "Ali Fardan" <raiz at stellarbound.space> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 15:33:31 +0000
> khuxkm at tilde.team wrote:
> 
>> I think this is an apples to oranges comparison; 5.5.2 has to do with
>> the text/gemini media type, which, while it is a part of the spec,
>> isn't protocol based (i.e; I could serve text/gemini on a web server
>> if I really wanted to)
> 
> I'm referring to this in the context of the spec, not the protocol
> itself.

Alright, fine, I'll cede that point. Still, if anything, 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 show that new features that have been suggested have, in fact, made it into the spec. If we tell people not to suggest new features at all, we might miss out on some things we otherwise may have wanted.

>> Okay, but with all due respect, what does that have to do with
>> content size? CGI isn't going to help the fact that the protocol
>> currently has no way to indicate "this is how big the response will
>> be" or "this is the hash of the file". Those questions, at least in
>> my opinion, need to be answered at the protocol level, unless we're
>> going to make a .well-known for Gemini.
> 
> With all due respect, EOF should be an indicator.

But how can I differentiate "EOF, the file is over" vs "EOF, the socket died"?

Just my two cents,
Robert "khuxkm" Miles