Scheme Section 2 quibble

[acdw]

On 2020-11-17 (Tuesday) at 22:10, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:

> 
> 		//example.com/path/to/resource
> 
> IS A VALID URI!  IT IS NOT A HACK!  What part of the ABNF do you not
> understand?
[snip]
>   Again,
> 
> 		//example.com/path/to/resource
> 
> IS NOT A HACK!
[snip]
>   -spc
>

Hear, hear!  I was only going to list the Regex implementation[1] at the end of the RFC as proof that this wasn't a hack, but I appreciate your thoroughness in explanation.

This is, in fact, why I brought it up (apparently, again, sorry about that) at all -- the current gemini spec is incompatible in this way with the URI spec.  Since a goal of gemini is stated as not reinventing the wheel (okay, citation needed, but I think it's pretty much the ~feeling~ around here), we should stick to the pre-existing spec as much as possible.  I liked the suggested solution from spc (the multiple ones, they're all fine, in fact!) for the update in the spec.

I sincerely hope that 99% of geminauts are using URLs as we've discussed here, and I just want the spec to reflect their correct usage.

[1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-B

-- 
~ acdw
acdw.net | breadpunk.club/~breadw